Except... many important servers run on Linux. So while lots of malware exists for Vista/XP, lots of people around the world really do make attempts at assaulting Linux boxes. More often than not, I believe, success is based upon attacking weaknesses in the software installed on said box. (Which one can argue that a properly maintained *nix box has a better chance of surviving, because of the continual security updates for all of its software).
I believe what they're saying is that in ice, any pockets of water that form will concentrate all of the ingredients for life (that won't freeze, and will percolate to any liquid). The issue is that frozen comets and such, are far too cold for even these tiny pockets of concentrated ingredients to form, but I could be wrong.
I doubt a chat with a phisher would be helpful. It'd probably incredibly dull, and filled with brackets due to typos on their part. Besides, as in most shadow communities, phishers tend to assume you either know everything, or you're a complete idiot to be ignored. I'm willing to bet that you couldn't get a (current) phisher to tell all.
funny that IBM claims Open Source is more secure, and financially viable, then cites security and business reasons for not opening the source up.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Open Source fanatic (Note the capitalization), but it makes me doubt where IBM's allegiances lay.
There's over 1000ish (I've actually seen 300, but the number specifically isn't that important), but most are either specialized, dead, or a branch from one of the main ones. Most I've seen descend from a few major distros, such as Debian, Red Hat, Suse, Slackware, and Gentoo (which I believe is a semi-child of BSD (port, portage, etc.)). But to someone looking in on the outside, it can be very confusing.
eInk displays can't have images burnt in (short of physical trauma to the screen), and they only use power when the image changes. So using a screensaver would merely eat up all of your battery life, and not really protect the screen at all.
That means it would leave traces back to a central server, or botnet, that security officials could attack and possibly trace to the author. Granted, there are measures the writer could use, but it would still be risky for him/her to have something so traceable.
Back to the topic...I think Microsoft wants to claim bragging rights having come from very far behind when compared to Apache. True, but this really messes with their claim of being the "Continuing industry leader."
One would hope that as a proper rehab program, this would merely be a single tool in their fight against the addict's problem, not the entire toolbox. But, I agree, if used alone without addressing the addictive personality issues, it could be a problem.
Can you overdose, if the cocaine molecules are bound by anti-bodies? I know in Cocaine, overdose is usually lethal due to massive cardiac arrest. Obviously the anti-body bound Cocaine molecules will not affect the brain, but will it still prove to be dangerous to the heart?
And as I've said before, I can see this being used in a clinical setting, to help ensure that once released, a treated addict won't go back to their old habit. I'm sure it's not a panacea (few things are), but I'm sure it'll deffinately improve the chances of an addict breaking their addiction.
I'd vote for it being another tool (not a panacea) in the fight against Cocaine addictions. It can be used to break strong addictions, but you wouldn't want to use it to innoculate the general populace.
And it wouldn't eliminate a whole class of pain killers. It might affect some of the opiates, but Morphine would still work, and I'd be surprised if Codine and Vicodin are a major issue if you have someone that's dying due to Cocaine dependence.
I would probably hesitate to label this as a vaccine. I know technically it kind of is, but people will immediately thing "Innoculation," which I would argue against. This will probably end up being a highly effective treatment for Cocaine addicts, if it proves to be safe, and passes FDA standards (unfortunately, the two aren't always the same...).
The issue with this is, similar to any other encryption, especially one widely used, it will be broken. Since these will use some sort of radio frequency, grabbing information off them (once the encryption is broken), will become trivial. And updating the encryption on them will be slow, and costly.
Every security measure I've seen for RFID involves some encryption, and a "Handshake" between the reader and card. In a packed situation like an airport, it would be really easy to have an electronic device sniff this handshake, and by pretending to be a reader, lift multiple passport ID's off of people while passing by. Sounds dangerous to me.
Then would it be possible to move the GPL away from copyright (copyleft?) law, and more into a legally binding contract instead? Or is that a loophole covered already to prevent corporations from doing that with EULA's?
Personally, I didn't trust them the moment they made the deal with Microsoft. It showed more of an interest towards their own pocket books than the software or their users.
Unlike Red Hat, which promised to protect their customers, and change any infringing code, and Canonical, which I believe offered the same for *buntu users.
Slashdot Mirror
Except... many important servers run on Linux. So while lots of malware exists for Vista/XP, lots of people around the world really do make attempts at assaulting Linux boxes. More often than not, I believe, success is based upon attacking weaknesses in the software installed on said box. (Which one can argue that a properly maintained *nix box has a better chance of surviving, because of the continual security updates for all of its software).
I believe what they're saying is that in ice, any pockets of water that form will concentrate all of the ingredients for life (that won't freeze, and will percolate to any liquid). The issue is that frozen comets and such, are far too cold for even these tiny pockets of concentrated ingredients to form, but I could be wrong.
Just to make it interesting. Go to a known phishing site, enter in a fake ID and SSN, and follow it down the pipes.
I doubt a chat with a phisher would be helpful. It'd probably incredibly dull, and filled with brackets due to typos on their part. Besides, as in most shadow communities, phishers tend to assume you either know everything, or you're a complete idiot to be ignored. I'm willing to bet that you couldn't get a (current) phisher to tell all.
This is a pretty good reason to view the web through a proxy, or even Tor (if you can stand the performance hit you'll take).
funny that IBM claims Open Source is more secure, and financially viable, then cites security and business reasons for not opening the source up. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Open Source fanatic (Note the capitalization), but it makes me doubt where IBM's allegiances lay.
Negative. It was a HB, they're classy like that.
There's over 1000ish (I've actually seen 300, but the number specifically isn't that important), but most are either specialized, dead, or a branch from one of the main ones. Most I've seen descend from a few major distros, such as Debian, Red Hat, Suse, Slackware, and Gentoo (which I believe is a semi-child of BSD (port, portage, etc.)). But to someone looking in on the outside, it can be very confusing.
eInk displays can't have images burnt in (short of physical trauma to the screen), and they only use power when the image changes. So using a screensaver would merely eat up all of your battery life, and not really protect the screen at all.
That means it would leave traces back to a central server, or botnet, that security officials could attack and possibly trace to the author. Granted, there are measures the writer could use, but it would still be risky for him/her to have something so traceable.
I highly doubt it. But, it wouldn't surprise me too much.
One would hope that as a proper rehab program, this would merely be a single tool in their fight against the addict's problem, not the entire toolbox. But, I agree, if used alone without addressing the addictive personality issues, it could be a problem.
Can you overdose, if the cocaine molecules are bound by anti-bodies? I know in Cocaine, overdose is usually lethal due to massive cardiac arrest. Obviously the anti-body bound Cocaine molecules will not affect the brain, but will it still prove to be dangerous to the heart? And as I've said before, I can see this being used in a clinical setting, to help ensure that once released, a treated addict won't go back to their old habit. I'm sure it's not a panacea (few things are), but I'm sure it'll deffinately improve the chances of an addict breaking their addiction.
I'd vote for it being another tool (not a panacea) in the fight against Cocaine addictions. It can be used to break strong addictions, but you wouldn't want to use it to innoculate the general populace. And it wouldn't eliminate a whole class of pain killers. It might affect some of the opiates, but Morphine would still work, and I'd be surprised if Codine and Vicodin are a major issue if you have someone that's dying due to Cocaine dependence.
I would probably hesitate to label this as a vaccine. I know technically it kind of is, but people will immediately thing "Innoculation," which I would argue against. This will probably end up being a highly effective treatment for Cocaine addicts, if it proves to be safe, and passes FDA standards (unfortunately, the two aren't always the same...).
No Linux support for Silverlight?!? Why, I'm speechless...
I'm not sure how safe it'd be to have open walls of phosphor around, in contact with the air.
I can see the competitions for who can goatse the most people getting considerably more intense in the next few months.
The issue with this is, similar to any other encryption, especially one widely used, it will be broken. Since these will use some sort of radio frequency, grabbing information off them (once the encryption is broken), will become trivial. And updating the encryption on them will be slow, and costly.
Every security measure I've seen for RFID involves some encryption, and a "Handshake" between the reader and card. In a packed situation like an airport, it would be really easy to have an electronic device sniff this handshake, and by pretending to be a reader, lift multiple passport ID's off of people while passing by. Sounds dangerous to me.
Then would it be possible to move the GPL away from copyright (copyleft?) law, and more into a legally binding contract instead? Or is that a loophole covered already to prevent corporations from doing that with EULA's?
by our tags, that we have a few Wikipedian Protestors in our midsts.
It's another bad year, Dvorak is still writing.
Personally, I didn't trust them the moment they made the deal with Microsoft. It showed more of an interest towards their own pocket books than the software or their users. Unlike Red Hat, which promised to protect their customers, and change any infringing code, and Canonical, which I believe offered the same for *buntu users.