I can confirm this as well, both the whois record and the traceroute. My tinfoil hat is tingling.;)
On a more serious note, I tried this IP address (208.65.153.253) found on this http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=225558&cid=18262112 slashdot post and that didn't seem to work for me either. Perhaps there is some kind of concerted attack against youtube or they have simply relocated servers since this journal post. Does anyone have a more recent IP address?
It's kind of funny that you say that (slackware then kubuntu), as so many people are suggesting exactly the opposite (learn the basics on Ubuntu and then migrate to other more fiddly distros). Although Ubuntu is a good place to start for a lot of the non-geek crowd I think you've got the right approach for the geeks.
When I switched to Linux about 3 years ago my first install was on a laptop and I had no real assistance from anyone else. I spent a full week fiddling with it trying to get it to work (even re-compiled two custom built kernels in the process), in the end I finally tried the testing version (sarge at the time I think) rather than the stable debian like I was trying at first. Sarge autodetected everything and it "just worked". Even though it cost me a week of much cussing, I think the experience was invaluable as I haven't been afraid to mess with config files, etc since then. Anyway, just my two cents.
I was mistaken in my assumption then. I read the bit about "Windows doesn't protect those files and therefore software developers must take care not to touch them." to mean that they were modifiable with user level access. I do agree though that it is ridiculous for people to run as admin all the time, this serves as a good example of why that is a bad idea.
"Why doesn't Windows protect its system startup files? That's a good question, one that I have asked myself in these last few days and wish I knew the answer. But of course I'm not going to blame Microsoft for our mistake. Windows doesn't protect those files and therefore software developers must take care not to touch them. We should have been more careful."
That is a good question. I am not an EVE player myself so I don't know if this update had to be run with admin privileges but it doesn't appear to be that way from the question and reply. If you are not running as admin then how is it even possible to remove a system file that is necessary to boot the system. Unlike the EVE representative making this statement I am going to blame Microsoft, it should not be the developers responsibility to make sure they don't break the OS, it is the OS developers responsibility to make sure that it cannot be broken without admin/system/root access.
This is going to be interesting...lawyer mill vs the number 1 law school in the country. Not only that but the poster above makes an interesting point about fair use (although I think it was more intended as flaimbait). Probably not fair use in this case though as they didn't "comment on" the movie,they simply took a part of it and worked it into their own creation, derivative work if I understand correctly. Regardless of the legal merits of the situation, I hope the media at large pick up on this, after they posted fake DMCA takedowns to silence their opponents they go and do this...not exactly ethical, even if it was "legal."
Hey I think you might be on to something here. If we can just layer enough neural networks decoding neural networks on top of each other we can follow the pain through our brain an map the connections that way.
Yeah, I had considered that but when I go to my bank it asks me for my account ID, loads a new page, asks me one of several questions I programmed answers into upon setting up the account, loads a page, then asks me for my password, and finally lets me in. If this kind of nonsense is deemed acceptable then I think a couple of questions is not too much to ask. Besides, you would really only need to ask one string of questions per user as once you deemed them intelligent enough to read something before clicking yes you know that person is "safe" and can refrain from bothering them in the future.
Although as stated in the summary (I didn't RTFA but from the comments it seems the summary accurately describes the proposed idea) the idea seems pretty flawed. However this might not be too bad of an idea in principle. Rather than asking if they want more security however, post a question saying "May we infect your computer, delete all your files, rape your children, etc..." then if the user clicks yes we know what kind of user we are dealing with and refuse service outright. As someone above pointed out if you are going to do business you should already be doing it in the most secure way possible, or at least the most reasonable. If you can't at least assume there is not a keylogger etc on the client computer without at least some level of confidence then you shouldn't be interacting with them for any sort of business transaction.
For sites that don't want to pose a question quite so obvious and thus scare away potential "good/safe" customers who think the site has just been hacked, you could ask a series of 2 or 3 more mundane questions and time the responses. If this is to be done though the odds of "yes" being the right answer should be 50/50. I'm not sure exactly what questions to use but it would be a simple enough matter to come up with a list of 10 or so and then randomly pick a few to give to the user.
Slashdot Mirror
I can confirm this as well, both the whois record and the traceroute. My tinfoil hat is tingling. ;)
On a more serious note, I tried this IP address (208.65.153.253) found on this http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=225558&cid=18262112 slashdot post and that didn't seem to work for me either. Perhaps there is some kind of concerted attack against youtube or they have simply relocated servers since this journal post. Does anyone have a more recent IP address?
-Buck
It's kind of funny that you say that (slackware then kubuntu), as so many people are suggesting exactly the opposite (learn the basics on Ubuntu and then migrate to other more fiddly distros). Although Ubuntu is a good place to start for a lot of the non-geek crowd I think you've got the right approach for the geeks.
When I switched to Linux about 3 years ago my first install was on a laptop and I had no real assistance from anyone else. I spent a full week fiddling with it trying to get it to work (even re-compiled two custom built kernels in the process), in the end I finally tried the testing version (sarge at the time I think) rather than the stable debian like I was trying at first. Sarge autodetected everything and it "just worked". Even though it cost me a week of much cussing, I think the experience was invaluable as I haven't been afraid to mess with config files, etc since then. Anyway, just my two cents.
-Buck
I was mistaken in my assumption then. I read the bit about "Windows doesn't protect those files and therefore software developers must take care not to touch them." to mean that they were modifiable with user level access. I do agree though that it is ridiculous for people to run as admin all the time, this serves as a good example of why that is a bad idea.
-Buck
From the article...
"Why doesn't Windows protect its system startup files? That's a good question, one that I have asked myself in these last few days and wish I knew the answer. But of course I'm not going to blame Microsoft for our mistake. Windows doesn't protect those files and therefore software developers must take care not to touch them. We should have been more careful."
That is a good question. I am not an EVE player myself so I don't know if this update had to be run with admin privileges but it doesn't appear to be that way from the question and reply. If you are not running as admin then how is it even possible to remove a system file that is necessary to boot the system. Unlike the EVE representative making this statement I am going to blame Microsoft, it should not be the developers responsibility to make sure they don't break the OS, it is the OS developers responsibility to make sure that it cannot be broken without admin/system/root access.
-Buck
This is going to be interesting...lawyer mill vs the number 1 law school in the country. Not only that but the poster above makes an interesting point about fair use (although I think it was more intended as flaimbait). Probably not fair use in this case though as they didn't "comment on" the movie ,they simply took a part of it and worked it into their own creation, derivative work if I understand correctly. Regardless of the legal merits of the situation, I hope the media at large pick up on this, after they posted fake DMCA takedowns to silence their opponents they go and do this...not exactly ethical, even if it was "legal."
-Buck
Hey I think you might be on to something here. If we can just layer enough neural networks decoding neural networks on top of each other we can follow the pain through our brain an map the connections that way.
-Buck
Yeah, I had considered that but when I go to my bank it asks me for my account ID, loads a new page, asks me one of several questions I programmed answers into upon setting up the account, loads a page, then asks me for my password, and finally lets me in. If this kind of nonsense is deemed acceptable then I think a couple of questions is not too much to ask. Besides, you would really only need to ask one string of questions per user as once you deemed them intelligent enough to read something before clicking yes you know that person is "safe" and can refrain from bothering them in the future.
-Buck
Although as stated in the summary (I didn't RTFA but from the comments it seems the summary accurately describes the proposed idea) the idea seems pretty flawed. However this might not be too bad of an idea in principle. Rather than asking if they want more security however, post a question saying "May we infect your computer, delete all your files, rape your children, etc..." then if the user clicks yes we know what kind of user we are dealing with and refuse service outright. As someone above pointed out if you are going to do business you should already be doing it in the most secure way possible, or at least the most reasonable. If you can't at least assume there is not a keylogger etc on the client computer without at least some level of confidence then you shouldn't be interacting with them for any sort of business transaction.
For sites that don't want to pose a question quite so obvious and thus scare away potential "good/safe" customers who think the site has just been hacked, you could ask a series of 2 or 3 more mundane questions and time the responses. If this is to be done though the odds of "yes" being the right answer should be 50/50. I'm not sure exactly what questions to use but it would be a simple enough matter to come up with a list of 10 or so and then randomly pick a few to give to the user.
-Buck