Considering that we could be fried by a white dwarf accumilating mass from a nearby star, causing it to go supernova, I think a continent is the least we could lose:
His name was Morihei Ueshiba, and he died at the age of 67, so he was hardly pushing 90.
If you look closely at the fight scene, you can see Yoda effortlessly knocking Dooku's lightsaber away. I've been taught to do a simliar thing in Aikido. It was at the least interesting.
Yoda did use the force, then both mutually agreed to fight with lightsabers. Granted, all the bouncing around was no-doubt Force-induced, but they had their go-out with the force before all the slashing and bouncing.
"The Windows XP problems affect a little-used feature that eventually will allow consumers to control high-tech household appliances using their computers. Called "universal plug and play," the feature is activated by design in every copy of Windows XP and can be added manually to Microsoft's earlier Windows ME software, also used by millions of consumers worldwide."
I'm glad I didn't get around to plugging my toilet into my PC. Whew!
How Does Microsoft Expect to Stay in Business?
on
WinXP Security Flaw
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
First there's the licensing stuff, which is obnoxious and Orwellian, then there was the TCP/IP vulnerability, and now THIS!?
So, basically, you pay more for an OS that's completely insecure and Microsoft gets to keep track of you. Linux, anyone?
My biggest question is this: does SuSE 7.3 PPC support sound on the iBook? I'm using Mandrake Linux 8.0 now, and it's decent, but I have no sound. This is most unfortunate when I'm trying to work and I can't listen to MP3s. Yellow Dog Linux 2.1 is supposed to have sound support, but the installation discs wouldn't mount in my CD/DVD drive. I haven't tried Linux/PPC, so I have no clue in that arena.
It would also be nice to be able to underclock my processor like in MacOS so that the battery lasts longer, monitor the battery life with software, and play DVDs. Hopefully, when I have more time, I will help others resolve these issues. I've heard rumors of an iBook Linux distro, and there's a page at SourceForge, but I can't confirm this.
Re:So, how long until....
on
Portable N64
·
· Score: 1
I can make a portable XBox. So can you. Just take a pile of dog shit and put it in a small paper bag.
When this gets implemented on CDs people actually want, why is it that I forsee people breaking out the solder guns and getting personal with their stereo systems? They obviously have not thought this out very well, as stated in the article:
"However, Apple Mac users have succeeded in playing the German disc."
I also saw no mention of how rippable these CDs are once you manage to get them to play on a computer. Record companies are retarded. Why did they dump millions of dollars into MP3-based cases and choose to focus on CP copying? Ripping, not copying, is the problem.
I'm just waiting for the person with enough time on their hands to implement a way to find a cheap CD player on the market and rig it to a PC. Then all this goes out the window, and the RIAA starts all over.
Maybe if they'd quit fucking customers and artists alike over, they wouldn't have to be so protective of their stuff.
...why would you want to reverse engineer this beyond just being able to access this service when they absolutely must? Would anyone here actually want to use this? I don't. I like owning my own files and I like my privacy. I also appreciate the hack value of having my own intricate operating system and computer.
Obviously, some people will like.NET because it's for.MORONS. I won't, and I really don't want to use it even if it is reverse engineered.
When people start realizing that Microsoft is ass-raping their privacy, wouldn't it be nice if they could turn to open source solutions to get their privacy back? I think that's the number one thing on our side.
Microsoft does not want the network to be the computer, it wants Microsoft to be the computer.
Samba was a good reverse engineer of a proprietary Microsoft protocol, but damn it, CIFS/SMB is not very good. Anyone who's actually had to get knee-deep into NetBIOS crap knows that it's insecure and not very well designed. I don't want to have to make another Microsoft POS a daily part of my life.
Am I the only one who thinks.NET is the most retarded name Microsoft could've come up with for this? It's not even trendy. It tries to be trendy, but it fails miserably.
If I was heading the creativity department over at Microsoft, the guy who came up with the name.NET would be fired and be escorted out of the building. It's almost as bad as the make-up compact laptops Apple was designing before they realized that those notebooks looked stupid, and that sleek design was better.
It's nice to see that someone is sticking up for people's freedom of speech (a thank you goes out to Slashdot as well). Sometimes it's nice to be anonymous, especially when in political situations where your family and friends can be raped, tortured, and murdered:O
I for one applaud his work. I actually wouldn't mind working for him. I can only begin to fathom the amount of security experience one would gain.
I'm wondering how anonymous posting on Usenet would be handled if it was done from a country which did not have freedom of speech. Given the recent Slashdot story on global conferences for Internet content, it'll be interesting to see how this works out over time.
Not to mention the MPAA's favorite CSS...
It's kind of like George Foreman naming all of his kids George. It works for him, but it confused the hell out of everyone else.
Am I the only one who's going to look at people funny now when they say CSS. Do they mean Cascading Style Sheets, or this? Argh, the headaches! CSL would've been better: C Scripting Language. Hey, that's practicality!
In light of the recent announcement made by VA Linux Systems in which they announced that they're giving up the Linux hardware business, do you feel that this, in any way, could cause FUD in potenial consumers of equipment built for or around Linux?
There's a big difference between Chinese *culture* and Chinese *government*. The Chinese government, as it is now, has only existed since 1949. Chinese culture, on the other hand, is the oldest culture in existance and has existed, in one form or another, for 2,000 years.
Also, just because a government has existed for a long period of time doesn't make it a great form of government. That's a fallacy. The duration of existance does not measure the amount of good or evil an entity is.
I have to ask: why can't countries who have "narrow" laws implement some sort of filtering technology? Or, why can't a committee focus on designing this rather than censoring everyone? There could be standards created for filtering traffic in and out of a country rather than smacking ISPs over the head when they fail to censor for the rest of the world.
It would seem that if countries don't want to see this stuff, they should be the ones who have to figure out how they won't see it, not the whole world. I do not want to give up my freedom of speech in exchange for complying with Chinese law.
These types of actions on Microsoft's behalf is exactly the reason why I bought an Apple iBook with OS X recently, learned how to use Unix over the last four years, and put a LINUX firewall between my Microsoft machines and the Internet--I don't trust M$ products enough to hang a Winbox's bare ass off the network like I would Linux or OpenBSD.
I don't mean to sound like a Slashdot M$ basher. I have my reasons...
After all, how often has scientific work been duplicated because the second (or third+) scientist didn't know what the first had done?
That's actually a good thing. This is the same prinicple as the Open Source movement. If everyone can see the articles in journals, then maybe someone out there will have a much better idea, and further science because of it.
Let's just pray together that this doesn't lead to stupid patents....
I had an old 486 Toshiba laptop that only had a floppy drive. Slackware was the only distro that would fit on floppies so I could install it. The floppy feature is great for weird hack projects like this.
I've always thought of Slackware as the hacker's preferred choice of distros. I really like it, but it doesn't stay up to date like RedHat or Mandrake does.
What better way to protect communcations that with a tried and true operating system that has almost no security holes (at least, it won't after the NSA gets done with it--they'll probably audit every line of code as was done with OpenBSD)? Would you sleep better at night if they were protecting our communications with an operating system made by people who are to incompetent to know how write an e-mail program that doesn't run viruses automatically?
It would be extremely hard to add backdoors to Linux. The code is all Open Source. Under the GNU, the NSA is required by law to release source code modifications to the public. How would they explain a source code modification like, "05/13/01 - Added backdoor code to the TCP stack."?
People are overly paranoid. Just because its the NSA doesn't mean that they're doing this just to add backdoors to Linux. Even if they did, and they somehow manged to get away with it (which is extremely doubtful), it would only be applicable to their distribution. They could always convince Torvalds to let them add it to the kernel as a whole, but do you think all the other kernel hackers wouldn't notice?
I have no doubt that the NSA puts backdoors in Microsoft software, but I also have very little doubt that they will try the same with Linux. An ex-spook even admitted to Microsoft backdoors. Try the same with Open Source software, and you'll have hundreds upon thousands of angry hacker-types banging down your doors. Give the NSA a little more credit.
If anything, this is a step in the right direction for the NSA. They realize that security through obscurity is a poor way to protect systems, and that Linux can provide them with an ultra-secure OS. They can then give this back to the people, and show what years of security and encryption research has produced. I say encourage them. Nothing will make Linux more secure than the US government pumping money and their best security hackers (yes, I mean hackers, not crackers) into the OS. As long as they follow the GNU license, we should see lots of excellent security enhancements in Linux coming soon!
Why doesn't M$ go after the warez kids who peddle around pirated copies of Windows and other software? I think it's because of two reasons.
One, Microsoft can more easily extract money out of people who are trying to do it legally. An organization that can afford several hundred Windows license has money. If they mess up, Microsoft can extract lots of money out of them.
Two, allowing a certain amount of pirating HELPS Microsoft. Think about it. When a somewhat competent 15 year-old gets his hands on software like Win2K, he learns it very well. Down the road a few years, his employer will ask him what software the company needs to run properly.
"Uh, 200 copies of Windows 2000, 5 copies of Win2K server, and 200 copies of Microsoft Office.
A $400 lost turned into a LOT of profit. Microsoft, in the mean time, is at Redmond going, "CHA CHING! CHA CHING!"
That's very true. OpenBSD is incredibly hard. But you really can't use it as a desktop OS like you can Linux or Windows.
To be secure, use Linux. If you're really, really paranoid, use OpenBSD. If you're all about easy to use interfaces, use MacOS. If you just don't care, use Windows. Take your pick. Given the fact that OpenBSD is too hard for the average Joe, MacOS crashes too much (sans OS X), and Windows is, well, Windows, I choose Linux. If you take the time to learn RedHat Linux, you can effectively secure your system while using it as a very effective desktop OS. But, damn, OpenBSD is so tight. It's nice to see that someone shuts stuff off by default, rather than keep everything on by default *coughs IRIX, IRIX*.
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that we could be fried by a white dwarf accumilating mass from a nearby star, causing it to go supernova, I think a continent is the least we could lose:
2 .html U CK .HTM
http://www.cosmiverse.com/news/space/space0523020
http://www.dispatch.co.za/2002/05/24/features/D
Ever put a bug in a microwave? MUAH!
His name was Morihei Ueshiba, and he died at the age of 67, so he was hardly pushing 90.
If you look closely at the fight scene, you can see Yoda effortlessly knocking Dooku's lightsaber away. I've been taught to do a simliar thing in Aikido. It was at the least interesting.
Yoda did use the force, then both mutually agreed to fight with lightsabers. Granted, all the bouncing around was no-doubt Force-induced, but they had their go-out with the force before all the slashing and bouncing.
Didn't you watch the film?
"The Windows XP problems affect a little-used feature that eventually will allow consumers to control high-tech household appliances using their computers. Called "universal plug and play," the feature is activated by design in every copy of Windows XP and can be added manually to Microsoft's earlier Windows ME software, also used by millions of consumers worldwide."
I'm glad I didn't get around to plugging my toilet into my PC. Whew!
First there's the licensing stuff, which is obnoxious and Orwellian, then there was the TCP/IP vulnerability, and now THIS!?
So, basically, you pay more for an OS that's completely insecure and Microsoft gets to keep track of you. Linux, anyone?
My biggest question is this: does SuSE 7.3 PPC support sound on the iBook? I'm using Mandrake Linux 8.0 now, and it's decent, but I have no sound. This is most unfortunate when I'm trying to work and I can't listen to MP3s. Yellow Dog Linux 2.1 is supposed to have sound support, but the installation discs wouldn't mount in my CD/DVD drive. I haven't tried Linux/PPC, so I have no clue in that arena.
It would also be nice to be able to underclock my processor like in MacOS so that the battery lasts longer, monitor the battery life with software, and play DVDs. Hopefully, when I have more time, I will help others resolve these issues. I've heard rumors of an iBook Linux distro, and there's a page at SourceForge, but I can't confirm this.
I can make a portable XBox. So can you. Just take a pile of dog shit and put it in a small paper bag.
...but now the car will also? That's just wonderful. I have enough fun with that special time of the month as is.
When this gets implemented on CDs people actually want, why is it that I forsee people breaking out the solder guns and getting personal with their stereo systems? They obviously have not thought this out very well, as stated in the article:
I also saw no mention of how rippable these CDs are once you manage to get them to play on a computer. Record companies are retarded. Why did they dump millions of dollars into MP3-based cases and choose to focus on CP copying? Ripping, not copying, is the problem.
I'm just waiting for the person with enough time on their hands to implement a way to find a cheap CD player on the market and rig it to a PC. Then all this goes out the window, and the RIAA starts all over.
Maybe if they'd quit fucking customers and artists alike over, they wouldn't have to be so protective of their stuff.
I can't post as an anonymous coward to say this: that is the FUNNIEST thing I have read on Slashdot in a month.
...why would you want to reverse engineer this beyond just being able to access this service when they absolutely must? Would anyone here actually want to use this? I don't. I like owning my own files and I like my privacy. I also appreciate the hack value of having my own intricate operating system and computer.
Obviously, some people will like .NET because it's for .MORONS. I won't, and I really don't want to use it even if it is reverse engineered.
When people start realizing that Microsoft is ass-raping their privacy, wouldn't it be nice if they could turn to open source solutions to get their privacy back? I think that's the number one thing on our side.
Microsoft does not want the network to be the computer, it wants Microsoft to be the computer.
Samba was a good reverse engineer of a proprietary Microsoft protocol, but damn it, CIFS/SMB is not very good. Anyone who's actually had to get knee-deep into NetBIOS crap knows that it's insecure and not very well designed. I don't want to have to make another Microsoft POS a daily part of my life.
Am I the only one who thinks .NET is the most retarded name Microsoft could've come up with for this? It's not even trendy. It tries to be trendy, but it fails miserably.
If I was heading the creativity department over at Microsoft, the guy who came up with the name .NET would be fired and be escorted out of the building. It's almost as bad as the make-up compact laptops Apple was designing before they realized that those notebooks looked stupid, and that sleek design was better.
It's nice to see that someone is sticking up for people's freedom of speech (a thank you goes out to Slashdot as well). Sometimes it's nice to be anonymous, especially when in political situations where your family and friends can be raped, tortured, and murdered :O
I for one applaud his work. I actually wouldn't mind working for him. I can only begin to fathom the amount of security experience one would gain.
I'm wondering how anonymous posting on Usenet would be handled if it was done from a country which did not have freedom of speech. Given the recent Slashdot story on global conferences for Internet content, it'll be interesting to see how this works out over time.
Not to mention the MPAA's favorite CSS... It's kind of like George Foreman naming all of his kids George. It works for him, but it confused the hell out of everyone else.
Am I the only one who's going to look at people funny now when they say CSS. Do they mean Cascading Style Sheets, or this? Argh, the headaches! CSL would've been better: C Scripting Language. Hey, that's practicality!
In light of the recent announcement made by VA Linux Systems in which they announced that they're giving up the Linux hardware business, do you feel that this, in any way, could cause FUD in potenial consumers of equipment built for or around Linux?
There's a big difference between Chinese *culture* and Chinese *government*. The Chinese government, as it is now, has only existed since 1949. Chinese culture, on the other hand, is the oldest culture in existance and has existed, in one form or another, for 2,000 years.
Also, just because a government has existed for a long period of time doesn't make it a great form of government. That's a fallacy. The duration of existance does not measure the amount of good or evil an entity is.
I have to ask: why can't countries who have "narrow" laws implement some sort of filtering technology? Or, why can't a committee focus on designing this rather than censoring everyone? There could be standards created for filtering traffic in and out of a country rather than smacking ISPs over the head when they fail to censor for the rest of the world.
It would seem that if countries don't want to see this stuff, they should be the ones who have to figure out how they won't see it, not the whole world. I do not want to give up my freedom of speech in exchange for complying with Chinese law.
These types of actions on Microsoft's behalf is exactly the reason why I bought an Apple iBook with OS X recently, learned how to use Unix over the last four years, and put a LINUX firewall between my Microsoft machines and the Internet--I don't trust M$ products enough to hang a Winbox's bare ass off the network like I would Linux or OpenBSD.
I don't mean to sound like a Slashdot M$ basher. I have my reasons...
I can't find the link right now, but Microsoft and the NSA have backdoors into your system. Microsoft doesn't deny NSA involvement, either.
Given their past history, anyone who uses .NET is either ignorant, foolish, or just doesn't care.
Where do you want to be violated today?
No wonder the agents in The Matrix were able to track down Neo so damn fast! I always wondered about that myself.
After all, how often has scientific work been duplicated because the second (or third+) scientist didn't know what the first had done?
That's actually a good thing. This is the same prinicple as the Open Source movement. If everyone can see the articles in journals, then maybe someone out there will have a much better idea, and further science because of it.
Let's just pray together that this doesn't lead to stupid patents....
I had an old 486 Toshiba laptop that only had a floppy drive. Slackware was the only distro that would fit on floppies so I could install it. The floppy feature is great for weird hack projects like this.
I've always thought of Slackware as the hacker's preferred choice of distros. I really like it, but it doesn't stay up to date like RedHat or Mandrake does.
What better way to protect communcations that with a tried and true operating system that has almost no security holes (at least, it won't after the NSA gets done with it--they'll probably audit every line of code as was done with OpenBSD)? Would you sleep better at night if they were protecting our communications with an operating system made by people who are to incompetent to know how write an e-mail program that doesn't run viruses automatically?
It would be extremely hard to add backdoors to Linux. The code is all Open Source. Under the GNU, the NSA is required by law to release source code modifications to the public. How would they explain a source code modification like, "05/13/01 - Added backdoor code to the TCP stack."?
People are overly paranoid. Just because its the NSA doesn't mean that they're doing this just to add backdoors to Linux. Even if they did, and they somehow manged to get away with it (which is extremely doubtful), it would only be applicable to their distribution. They could always convince Torvalds to let them add it to the kernel as a whole, but do you think all the other kernel hackers wouldn't notice?
I have no doubt that the NSA puts backdoors in Microsoft software, but I also have very little doubt that they will try the same with Linux. An ex-spook even admitted to Microsoft backdoors. Try the same with Open Source software, and you'll have hundreds upon thousands of angry hacker-types banging down your doors. Give the NSA a little more credit.
If anything, this is a step in the right direction for the NSA. They realize that security through obscurity is a poor way to protect systems, and that Linux can provide them with an ultra-secure OS. They can then give this back to the people, and show what years of security and encryption research has produced. I say encourage them. Nothing will make Linux more secure than the US government pumping money and their best security hackers (yes, I mean hackers, not crackers) into the OS. As long as they follow the GNU license, we should see lots of excellent security enhancements in Linux coming soon!
Why doesn't M$ go after the warez kids who peddle around pirated copies of Windows and other software? I think it's because of two reasons.
One, Microsoft can more easily extract money out of people who are trying to do it legally. An organization that can afford several hundred Windows license has money. If they mess up, Microsoft can extract lots of money out of them.
Two, allowing a certain amount of pirating HELPS Microsoft. Think about it. When a somewhat competent 15 year-old gets his hands on software like Win2K, he learns it very well. Down the road a few years, his employer will ask him what software the company needs to run properly.
"Uh, 200 copies of Windows 2000, 5 copies of Win2K server, and 200 copies of Microsoft Office.
A $400 lost turned into a LOT of profit. Microsoft, in the mean time, is at Redmond going, "CHA CHING! CHA CHING!"
That's very true. OpenBSD is incredibly hard. But you really can't use it as a desktop OS like you can Linux or Windows.
To be secure, use Linux. If you're really, really paranoid, use OpenBSD. If you're all about easy to use interfaces, use MacOS. If you just don't care, use Windows. Take your pick. Given the fact that OpenBSD is too hard for the average Joe, MacOS crashes too much (sans OS X), and Windows is, well, Windows, I choose Linux. If you take the time to learn RedHat Linux, you can effectively secure your system while using it as a very effective desktop OS. But, damn, OpenBSD is so tight. It's nice to see that someone shuts stuff off by default, rather than keep everything on by default *coughs IRIX, IRIX*.