The bottom line is that incoming mail is of no use in proving anything as she has little or no control over what she receives.
Did she request that these emails be sent to her private email address? Unknown. Did she reply to any of these apparently work related emails? Unknown. Where any of these apparently work related emails sent exclusively to her private email address, or where they sent to multiple adresses (ie: both her private and 'work' email adresses?) Unknown.
Being the recipient of work related emails no more makes her guilty of using her private email for work purposes than receiving spam makes me a spammer. Without knowing what she was sending from her private email account, knowing what she was receiving is irrelevant.
Sorry, but I have to question your abilities of a System Admin if you've gone to the extremes of securing your servers in all the appropriate manners, yet you still cry foul if you are hacked.
Yeah, by that logic if I get home and find a stranger sitting in my lounge watching tv I should just let it slide. After all, he obviously knows more than the security firm that's paid to protect my house, and sending one more punk to jail isn't going to make my house less of a target for robbers, so why bother?
But go ahead, enjoy living in your world where might makes right.
In every other sphere of life, if you spot a problem you point it out first. You don't break into a house to tell the owner thier locks are too easy to pick, you don't take a car for a joyride to let the owner know they left the door unlocked. Why is computer security any different, that we should somehow applaud an action that would in any other sphere of security get the perpetrator slapped down hard?
Hell, the trust shown by some of these responses is disturbing. So the guy gave them a 16 page paper on how he compromised thier systems, and people are willing to take his word for it that he did nothing else?
This guy went about proving his point ass-backwards, and deserves to get slapped down for it.
Not that surprising, given that in the long run it's only temporary. Once that data has been distributed, had multiple redundant backups made and cataloged, it will be wiped.
It is very much a way station - just because data will initially get dumped there doesn't mean it's going to live there very long.
Im also sceptical and feel that the use of terabytes is largely to keep the article(s) understandable to non geeks, and that the actual storage capacity is probably in the PB range anyway.
Re:History Channel Special & Their "Comuiting
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
You do realise that the vast mojority of the number crunching that will be done on the collected data will not be done on site? Those ten thousand nodes are mostly for data storage, not number crunching.
Current resolutions won't look as good on a 12' screen as they do on a 60". (Yes, we're a long way from something that size, but it's about the size of my window and a size I could well imagine watching TV/Video on, comfortably, from 8 or 9' away).
It would be like sitting just far back enough in a cinema screen to see the whole screen without turning your head. And your current 1920x1080 resolution will not cut it on a screen that size (Would still look good, but not as good as it could). Not everyone's cup of tea, but hardly preposterous.
Because let's face it, if everyone knew that Slashdot's privacy policy allows them to sell your email address and first born child (just kidding!), no one would sign up on the site
You mean you didn't create a once off, disposable email address for the purposes of registering? There's a bin for your geek card on the left as you leave the building, thanks!
On a more serious note, Slashdot is probably one of the few forums of its size where a significant number of members would be able to figure out exactly who leaked/sold thier email addresses, and it probably wouldn't take too many people pointing fingers at SF for doing such a thing before they started leaking subscribers. There's a difference between having no legal recourse and being helpless.
It would be amusing if the Higgs particle was discovered before CERN really had a go at it. It may be far from the only experiment the LHC is designed for, but it is also the most publicised.
It is when you then turn around and offer them cars and AC that they can run as much as they'd like, but that also happen to be significantly more expensive than the environmently unfriendly cars and AC that they replace.
I'm all for increased efficiency and reducing waste and pollution, but for it's own sake and in a sane manner. I don't give a shit about global warming/cooling/climate change.
I'm running a fairly standard XP install, and when my machine is idle, so is my network. It's not foolproof, but seeing a blip on my router once an hour is not going to make me think my box is compromised. A network monitor helps to see whether unexpected traffic is originating from my box or not in the rare case I need to check.
Works well enough on a single non networked box, and apart from the DHCP the rest are easy enough to switch off for a few minutes. Had a similar concern a few days ago when I noticed a lot of traffic going through my router even though I knew I was not running anything that should be using it - process manager didn't show any of the usual culprits (auto updates) so I checked the network traffic with a network monitor. It showed a ton of traffic hitting my router on the port that my torrent client (which I had closed about 10 minutes earlier) was set up for. Obviously the trackers hadn't updated yet and were still showing me as a seed or peer, so I was still getting hit by torrent requests.
Reset my connection and no more traffic. Granted, if you're on a network or are in the habit of running a gazillion network reliant apps or services this wont work.
Pretty sure you can get any number of applications that you can use to identify and sort through any network traffic, at least from your own machine.
You don't say. I guess you live off the land, or have a huge inheritance to live off of?
Whats that, you work for a living? You actually provide goods and services for a price, hoping to exceed your cost of living? You evil EVIL person!
Off topic (or more so): Isn't it ironic that when a company whos main revenue stream is from advertising releases a browser, the most widely requested feature being asked for is the ability to block adverts?
Which brings up another thought: If Google were to oblige and add ad blocking to Chrome that doesn't block thier own ads, wouldn't they run afoul of a whole host of laws against anti competitive behaviour?
Unless he's operating a company sufficiently similar in nature to that of the registered trademark holder, trademark laws don't apply (at least not in the sense that they could be applied).
If you open a fast food store or restaurant and call it McDonalds, yes you're asking for a legal slapdown. If you're a shoe shop, camping gear supplier or any number of other businesses that are unrelated to food in any way, there's nothing McDonalds (the fast food giant) can do.
It does a substantial portion of a traditional OS's tasks
Such as? Given that an OS's only task is to provide and manage the interface between hardware and software, I fail to see how Chrome performs any part of that function?
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I am genuinely curious as to why people equate the 95% of a modern OS package that is, technically, just bells and whistles, with the actual function of the OS? The media player, browser, GUI, desktop environment, cd burner, search funtions, file manager and dozens of other applications that come standard with the installation of most operating systems are exactly that - applications. They are completely incidental to the core purpose of an operating system.
I encountered a few people in EQOA and FFXI who didn't have one, but would always say: "yeah I'm getting a keyboard soon."
If you can play the game without a keyboard, it's not a requirement. How many people have you met that played Wii Fit without the balance board or Guitar Hero without the guitar?
Everyone knows you'll need a keyboard for it
False. Whether you'll need a keyboard or not depends entirely on the game, regardless of genre. The only reason " Everyone knows you'll need a keyboard for it" currently is because MMORPGs developed for the PC assume, naturally enough, that your PC will have a keyboard attached. Much like it's assumed you have a mouse or similar pointing device. Go back 15 odd years and many games were playable keyboard only, because it wasn't assumed that you had a mouse.
If you develop an MMORPG specifically with consoles in mind (such as FFXI) you can design the UI to utilise the existing controller, even if it's not feature complete (You can play the game without having to chat). If it requires a keyboard and mouse (which games such as WoW arguably do) you're stuck with three choices if you want to port it to consoles - either sell the game with a keyboard and mouse (And people just love extra expense), sell it without (and watch buyers rage about having bought software that they don't have the hardware to use) or dumb down the UI to make it workable on a standard controller (since the PC version allows you to have a lot more clickable icons than you could realistically map to a controller).
Agreed. Seeing the term 'Operating System' thrown about so loosely makes me cringe, with the saddening realisation that to more and more people the shiny GUI *is* the OS.
Unfortunately, with regards to keyboards, what makes a console attractive to a developer is the exact same feature that would discourage a developer from making a console game that requires a keyboard. Predictability - when you develop a game for a console, you know exactly what hardware the console has as standard. Keyboards and mice are far from standard on any console - would you spend the vast sums of money required to develop a modern game, if you know for a fact that 99.5% of your target audience does not have the required hardware? You might get lucky (Wii Fit, Guitar Hero), but it's a hell of a risk (Eye toy anyone?)
There is no reason why new games cannot be developed for multiple platforms, but porting existing PC games that make copious use of keyboard shorcuts and custimisation is messy at best. (And games don't always port too well the other way either - I've come accross many a game ported from console to PC that had very clunky control systems compared to what you'd expect of a PC game)
It looks to my untrained eye like google chrome is working on seriously pushing a web OS (or a hybrid browser/OS)
I read that, and my brain almost imploded. All I can say is that you're obviously (hopefully) confusing a GUI with an OS. Otherwise you're talking about turning your PC into little more than a dumb terminal.
Are we talking about American Football, or soccer?
Assuming the former, do you seriously compare spending 3 or 4 hours a day, once or twice a week, over a period of roughly 3 months, watching every single game your favourite team plays, to people spending 16 hours a day, every day, come rain or shine for an indefinite period of weeks, months or even years?
A truely addicted game addict can spend more time playing thier favourite game in a couple of days than an NFL fan would spend in an entire season, even if they watched evey last minute of every match they played.
Even if you were referring to soccer, the same applies. I can watch every single match Liverpool plays all year without impacting my work, my social life (albeit theoretical) or my relationships (except with ManU supporters).
It's not so much about obsession as availability. If I was obsessed with a sport like baseball to the point where I *had* to watch every game, and games are played daily for 6 months of the year, that would probably also cause problems similar to what is being describer here. Watching every game a soccer team plays? They don't play as much, so it's less of a problem. American football, even less.
Don't we all strive for a world where GNU/Linux, Mac and Windows shares are around 30%?
No. Yes. Sorta.
As a consumer, I really couldn't care less if the market share of my chosen product is 90%, 9% or 0.9% as long as it does what I need or want it to do. As a (for profit) developer, the market share of the product on which I develop my product to run is not the only consideration, but it is definitely a major one. I'd target the 90%, then the 9%, then the 0.9% with diminishing returns and enthusiasm. Ideally I'd like to be developing a product that was OS independant, but that seems fairly rare these days for any decent sized piece of software. So back to being a consumer; I don't care about the market share of my OS for it's own sake, but I do care about it's market share insofar as it affects the products and services that are developed for it.
And if we're throwing generalisations around, here's mine: Most slashdotters have a "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" mentality. If something works for me, surely it must work for everyone else?
Having said all that, I'm of the opinion that the submitter very much has his head in the clouds. A nifty GUI may make up a huge percentage of what a user sees, but in practical terms it's a very small aspect of what goes into a good OS. It's like taking your car to an aftermarket auto shop and expecting them to design a new engine, cause hey, they did a really cool job with the cabin layout!
Agreed. I felt like punching something when the summary asked about how to teach kids to pass those certs. Teaching to the test rather than giving a solid grounding in the subject as a whole often leaves you with a bunch of certified idiots.
Yes, some of those certs are useful, but anyone who studies exclusively to get one should honestly look at another career path.
My biggest problem with using that quote is that it is often quoted incompletely:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
For some reason, whenever this quote is dragged out, one or both of the bolded sections is often omitted. Granted, even in context I don't that the measures being implemented are granting any safety, temporary or otherwise. On the other hand, being able to walk around in public without being observed is hardly a right, essential or otherwise. The quote, in full, is neither morally nor logically wrong. It is simply misquoted too often to have ay bearing on the issues it is normally dragged into.
Slashdot Mirror
The bottom line is that incoming mail is of no use in proving anything as she has little or no control over what she receives.
Did she request that these emails be sent to her private email address? Unknown.
Did she reply to any of these apparently work related emails? Unknown.
Where any of these apparently work related emails sent exclusively to her private email address, or where they sent to multiple adresses (ie: both her private and 'work' email adresses?) Unknown.
Being the recipient of work related emails no more makes her guilty of using her private email for work purposes than receiving spam makes me a spammer. Without knowing what she was sending from her private email account, knowing what she was receiving is irrelevant.
Sorry, but I have to question your abilities of a System Admin if you've gone to the extremes of securing your servers in all the appropriate manners, yet you still cry foul if you are hacked.
Yeah, by that logic if I get home and find a stranger sitting in my lounge watching tv I should just let it slide. After all, he obviously knows more than the security firm that's paid to protect my house, and sending one more punk to jail isn't going to make my house less of a target for robbers, so why bother?
But go ahead, enjoy living in your world where might makes right.
In every other sphere of life, if you spot a problem you point it out first. You don't break into a house to tell the owner thier locks are too easy to pick, you don't take a car for a joyride to let the owner know they left the door unlocked. Why is computer security any different, that we should somehow applaud an action that would in any other sphere of security get the perpetrator slapped down hard?
Hell, the trust shown by some of these responses is disturbing. So the guy gave them a 16 page paper on how he compromised thier systems, and people are willing to take his word for it that he did nothing else?
This guy went about proving his point ass-backwards, and deserves to get slapped down for it.
Not that surprising, given that in the long run it's only temporary. Once that data has been distributed, had multiple redundant backups made and cataloged, it will be wiped.
It is very much a way station - just because data will initially get dumped there doesn't mean it's going to live there very long.
Im also sceptical and feel that the use of terabytes is largely to keep the article(s) understandable to non geeks, and that the actual storage capacity is probably in the PB range anyway.
You do realise that the vast mojority of the number crunching that will be done on the collected data will not be done on site? Those ten thousand nodes are mostly for data storage, not number crunching.
Thanks, responses like yours make it very easy to see if someone RTFA or not. You obviously didn't.
Current resolutions won't look as good on a 12' screen as they do on a 60". (Yes, we're a long way from something that size, but it's about the size of my window and a size I could well imagine watching TV/Video on, comfortably, from 8 or 9' away).
It would be like sitting just far back enough in a cinema screen to see the whole screen without turning your head. And your current 1920x1080 resolution will not cut it on a screen that size (Would still look good, but not as good as it could). Not everyone's cup of tea, but hardly preposterous.
Because let's face it, if everyone knew that Slashdot's privacy policy allows them to sell your email address and first born child (just kidding!), no one would sign up on the site
You mean you didn't create a once off, disposable email address for the purposes of registering? There's a bin for your geek card on the left as you leave the building, thanks!
On a more serious note, Slashdot is probably one of the few forums of its size where a significant number of members would be able to figure out exactly who leaked/sold thier email addresses, and it probably wouldn't take too many people pointing fingers at SF for doing such a thing before they started leaking subscribers. There's a difference between having no legal recourse and being helpless.
It would be amusing if the Higgs particle was discovered before CERN really had a go at it. It may be far from the only experiment the LHC is designed for, but it is also the most publicised.
It is when you then turn around and offer them cars and AC that they can run as much as they'd like, but that also happen to be significantly more expensive than the environmently unfriendly cars and AC that they replace.
I'm all for increased efficiency and reducing waste and pollution, but for it's own sake and in a sane manner. I don't give a shit about global warming/cooling/climate change.
I'm running a fairly standard XP install, and when my machine is idle, so is my network. It's not foolproof, but seeing a blip on my router once an hour is not going to make me think my box is compromised. A network monitor helps to see whether unexpected traffic is originating from my box or not in the rare case I need to check.
Works well enough on a single non networked box, and apart from the DHCP the rest are easy enough to switch off for a few minutes. Had a similar concern a few days ago when I noticed a lot of traffic going through my router even though I knew I was not running anything that should be using it - process manager didn't show any of the usual culprits (auto updates) so I checked the network traffic with a network monitor. It showed a ton of traffic hitting my router on the port that my torrent client (which I had closed about 10 minutes earlier) was set up for. Obviously the trackers hadn't updated yet and were still showing me as a seed or peer, so I was still getting hit by torrent requests.
Reset my connection and no more traffic. Granted, if you're on a network or are in the habit of running a gazillion network reliant apps or services this wont work.
Pretty sure you can get any number of applications that you can use to identify and sort through any network traffic, at least from your own machine.
You don't say. I guess you live off the land, or have a huge inheritance to live off of?
Whats that, you work for a living? You actually provide goods and services for a price, hoping to exceed your cost of living? You evil EVIL person!
Off topic (or more so): Isn't it ironic that when a company whos main revenue stream is from advertising releases a browser, the most widely requested feature being asked for is the ability to block adverts?
Which brings up another thought: If Google were to oblige and add ad blocking to Chrome that doesn't block thier own ads, wouldn't they run afoul of a whole host of laws against anti competitive behaviour?
Unless he's operating a company sufficiently similar in nature to that of the registered trademark holder, trademark laws don't apply (at least not in the sense that they could be applied).
If you open a fast food store or restaurant and call it McDonalds, yes you're asking for a legal slapdown. If you're a shoe shop, camping gear supplier or any number of other businesses that are unrelated to food in any way, there's nothing McDonalds (the fast food giant) can do.
It does a substantial portion of a traditional OS's tasks
Such as? Given that an OS's only task is to provide and manage the interface between hardware and software, I fail to see how Chrome performs any part of that function?
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but I am genuinely curious as to why people equate the 95% of a modern OS package that is, technically, just bells and whistles, with the actual function of the OS? The media player, browser, GUI, desktop environment, cd burner, search funtions, file manager and dozens of other applications that come standard with the installation of most operating systems are exactly that - applications. They are completely incidental to the core purpose of an operating system.
Required != Recommended
I encountered a few people in EQOA and FFXI who didn't have one, but would always say: "yeah I'm getting a keyboard soon."
If you can play the game without a keyboard, it's not a requirement. How many people have you met that played Wii Fit without the balance board or Guitar Hero without the guitar?
Everyone knows you'll need a keyboard for it
False. Whether you'll need a keyboard or not depends entirely on the game, regardless of genre. The only reason " Everyone knows you'll need a keyboard for it" currently is because MMORPGs developed for the PC assume, naturally enough, that your PC will have a keyboard attached. Much like it's assumed you have a mouse or similar pointing device. Go back 15 odd years and many games were playable keyboard only, because it wasn't assumed that you had a mouse.
If you develop an MMORPG specifically with consoles in mind (such as FFXI) you can design the UI to utilise the existing controller, even if it's not feature complete (You can play the game without having to chat). If it requires a keyboard and mouse (which games such as WoW arguably do) you're stuck with three choices if you want to port it to consoles - either sell the game with a keyboard and mouse (And people just love extra expense), sell it without (and watch buyers rage about having bought software that they don't have the hardware to use) or dumb down the UI to make it workable on a standard controller (since the PC version allows you to have a lot more clickable icons than you could realistically map to a controller).
Agreed. Seeing the term 'Operating System' thrown about so loosely makes me cringe, with the saddening realisation that to more and more people the shiny GUI *is* the OS.
Unfortunately, with regards to keyboards, what makes a console attractive to a developer is the exact same feature that would discourage a developer from making a console game that requires a keyboard. Predictability - when you develop a game for a console, you know exactly what hardware the console has as standard. Keyboards and mice are far from standard on any console - would you spend the vast sums of money required to develop a modern game, if you know for a fact that 99.5% of your target audience does not have the required hardware? You might get lucky (Wii Fit, Guitar Hero), but it's a hell of a risk (Eye toy anyone?)
There is no reason why new games cannot be developed for multiple platforms, but porting existing PC games that make copious use of keyboard shorcuts and custimisation is messy at best. (And games don't always port too well the other way either - I've come accross many a game ported from console to PC that had very clunky control systems compared to what you'd expect of a PC game)
It looks to my untrained eye like google chrome is working on seriously pushing a web OS (or a hybrid browser/OS)
I read that, and my brain almost imploded. All I can say is that you're obviously (hopefully) confusing a GUI with an OS. Otherwise you're talking about turning your PC into little more than a dumb terminal.
Are we talking about American Football, or soccer?
Assuming the former, do you seriously compare spending 3 or 4 hours a day, once or twice a week, over a period of roughly 3 months, watching every single game your favourite team plays, to people spending 16 hours a day, every day, come rain or shine for an indefinite period of weeks, months or even years?
A truely addicted game addict can spend more time playing thier favourite game in a couple of days than an NFL fan would spend in an entire season, even if they watched evey last minute of every match they played.
Even if you were referring to soccer, the same applies. I can watch every single match Liverpool plays all year without impacting my work, my social life (albeit theoretical) or my relationships (except with ManU supporters).
It's not so much about obsession as availability. If I was obsessed with a sport like baseball to the point where I *had* to watch every game, and games are played daily for 6 months of the year, that would probably also cause problems similar to what is being describer here. Watching every game a soccer team plays? They don't play as much, so it's less of a problem. American football, even less.
Do "football super fans" get an endorphin rush when their favorite player on their team?
Now I'm going to sit here and hit F5 every 5 minutes until that sentence in completed. If I die of malnourishment, it's your fault!
Don't we all strive for a world where GNU/Linux, Mac and Windows shares are around 30%?
No. Yes. Sorta.
As a consumer, I really couldn't care less if the market share of my chosen product is 90%, 9% or 0.9% as long as it does what I need or want it to do.
As a (for profit) developer, the market share of the product on which I develop my product to run is not the only consideration, but it is definitely a major one. I'd target the 90%, then the 9%, then the 0.9% with diminishing returns and enthusiasm. Ideally I'd like to be developing a product that was OS independant, but that seems fairly rare these days for any decent sized piece of software.
So back to being a consumer; I don't care about the market share of my OS for it's own sake, but I do care about it's market share insofar as it affects the products and services that are developed for it.
And if we're throwing generalisations around, here's mine: Most slashdotters have a "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" mentality. If something works for me, surely it must work for everyone else?
Having said all that, I'm of the opinion that the submitter very much has his head in the clouds. A nifty GUI may make up a huge percentage of what a user sees, but in practical terms it's a very small aspect of what goes into a good OS. It's like taking your car to an aftermarket auto shop and expecting them to design a new engine, cause hey, they did a really cool job with the cabin layout!
220GB? Eish - I don't know if Mweb have a similar policy wrt 'abuse', but I don't use anywhere near that - maybe 40GB a month max.
Agreed. I felt like punching something when the summary asked about how to teach kids to pass those certs. Teaching to the test rather than giving a solid grounding in the subject as a whole often leaves you with a bunch of certified idiots.
Yes, some of those certs are useful, but anyone who studies exclusively to get one should honestly look at another career path.
My biggest problem with using that quote is that it is often quoted incompletely:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
For some reason, whenever this quote is dragged out, one or both of the bolded sections is often omitted. Granted, even in context I don't that the measures being implemented are granting any safety, temporary or otherwise. On the other hand, being able to walk around in public without being observed is hardly a right, essential or otherwise. The quote, in full, is neither morally nor logically wrong. It is simply misquoted too often to have ay bearing on the issues it is normally dragged into.
FYI Mweb have been 'trialing' unlimited local since February. And if you're paying R700 for a 1Gb international account, you're being royally screwed.
But then again, you're probably including the Telscum line rental, so R700 makes sense.