That's a feature. Look at the idiotic nicks you get on dalnet and undernet where 40 or so characters are allowed.
Why not? If someone does something like make a nick like "HahahahahahaMyNickHasWayTooManyChars", that person is going to get kicked out of a lot of channels until he changes it fast. It's a self-correcting system.
I will admit, though, that for me, the biggest hole in the evolution theory is that "survival of the fittest" bit -- if that's supposedly going on, where in the name of smeg did all these complete MORONS come from?
Oh, that's a simple one; I'm surprised you even need to ask yourself that.:) Humans have created an environment (at least in 1st-world countries) where "survival of the fittest" is no longer law. Now it's basically "survival of everyone," and the most fit tend towards being economically successful (not counting other factors like being destroyed by those more fit, chance/luck, etc).
Ummm, he's being defensive, not offensive. You can't have it both ways by claiming that the same type of question by one person is an attack, but by the other person isn't an attack. Just because you agree with PFactor and not the other poster doesn't mean that the other poster has committed the fault.
Hardly, their business practices are child's play compared to the likes of Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel.
I've always hated this type of logic. "Hey, Company1 did something REALLY bad, so when Company2 does something sortof bad, hey, we shouldn't fault them. At least they're not doing what Company1 did." How right one company is does not depend one bit on how wrong another was.
First, there was a principle that said the fact a thing could be misued did not mean that all uses were illegitimate.
That's a nice one. Then again, it's common sense. Unfortunately, common sense often isn't.
Second there was a principle that somebody who accused somebody else of a crime and could not prove it had to suffer the punishment for that crime.
Oh my, that's awful. A smaller step in that direction might be nice, but still... should the prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case have been sentenced to hefty jail time? Or maybe even the death penalty? They prosecuted an innocent man, because Simpson was not proven guilty, right? Right? It all depends on how you define "proven guilty." I think we can all agree that our legal system is a little too broken to support item #2 above.
Yes, there are limits even to property rights. Under the constitution, does a private citizen have the right to, say, own a tank and park it on his front lawn? How about a stealth bomber? (Well, Bill Gates might be able to afford one. Take it for a cruise over Apple headquarters.)
Were you buying wiretapping kits? The investigation has not concluded. If the feds didn't find any "surreptitious" devices, Ramsey electronics probably won't see any penalties at all, besides the big annoyance of the raid itself. Raids don't always yield convictions. I know Slashdotters often like to paint themselves as wild rebels feared and hated by the government, but this gets a little rediculous. Buying a legal electronics hobby list isn't going to get you onto a government danger list.
However, they might meet some resistance from the Dreamcast.
Here is why I think the Playstation2 will beat the Dreamcast:
Backwards compatibility. Hmmm, play all your Playstation 1 games in your PSX2.
DVD. Need I say more? }:>
Unfortunately, the Dreamcast's popularity hasn't been skyrocketing. The impressive 128-bit platform hasn't exactly been knocking the socks off of the 32-bit scene.
Re:CA nearly power plant free! Now wants to steal
on
The Quest For Fusion
·
· Score: 1
You want you children to buy air just so they could breath?
Hey, it worked in Spaceballs, didn't it?
For God's sake, please don't tell me a Mel Brooks movie was a visionary look at the future.
PORN IS NOT INFORMATION. IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP TO BLOCK PORN
Actually, anything coming through through the modem line is information. Porn is as much information as a math textbook. It's all in how you desire to interpret it.
You hereby agree that if the terms of this Rules Agreement are not specifically enforced, Winfire will be irreparably damaged, and therefore You agree that Winfire shall be entitled, without bond or other security in excess of $1,000, or without proof of damages, to temporary and/or permanent injunctions and/or restraining orders with respect any breach(es) of this Rules Agreement, in addition to any other available remedies available to Winfire at law or in equity. Now I don't Normally check Terms of Service but is this normal?
I honestly wish more ISPs did this. That is, if you abuse your account to, say, spam a billion people, more happens than a simple "Oh you bad boy, no more account for you!"
what is sensible about tax dollars being spent on health care; things have worked fine in the US with no public health care for a great length of time. Changing a working system is not a good plan.
Tell that to people who have no insurance. Then again, it has always been convenient to ignore the lower class throughout much of American history. If you don't have to look at them, the system must be working just fine, eh? The idea is to improve: things should not always just be the same from generation to generation. The reason we would want to change the system is to build a better one. A system which in itself will be replaced by something else. Idealistic, sure. But it's good to try to replace an imperfect system with something that is better.
although it must be also admitted that an education focused purely into high tech might find such nicities as "The Lays of Ancient Rome" as unimportant, or ignorantly read into it a suggestive title where nothing of the sort exists.
Now now, you shouldn't stereotype high tech educations. I recently came out of a 4-year (*laugh*) university with an engineering degree, and one of the requirements for the degree was a full year of humanities. I spent mine on classical literature.
Some (most?) of us do filter packets that come into our routers that have a source address of our internal network.
Yes, and I would certainly call that a "good thing," but that's a little different from what I was asking. You're refering to preventing a spoofed 1.1.1.1 packet from entering the 1.1.1.1 network. What I'm asking is why don't more places prevent 1.1.1.1 from sending out a spoofed 2.2.2.2 packet? 2.2.2.2 isn't on that network, so why shouldn't packets heading out "from" those addresses be blocked? I'm trying to think of a legitimate reason for allowing these false from addresses in IP packets, but I can't at the moment.
This type of thing (bandwidth amplification) is really not new at all, and it's for that reason that I'm a little surprised that OS 9 would be vulnerable. What do you get when you ping the broadcast address of a subnet using a spoofed IP? Bandwidth multiplication of up to a few hundred times. There have been router (and other) fixes for some time that prevent someone from being the middleman, but the picture of inattentiveness painted by this issue is not a pretty one, considering so many places are still vulnerable to being middlemen.
Here's my question: Why aren't more ISPs filtering out IP packets that have a "From" address of a machine not covered by the ISP? If a router services an ip block of... say... 192.168.0.*, why doesn't it drop packets that don't come "from" that address? I suppose the big question is, why is address spoofing even an issue anymore? Is there some sort of roaming technology that might break? Can someone point out what would be back about this?
Now now... we know Jesus wasn't a fictional literary character. The Romans have records of him at the time. Now, whether he was really the sun of God is another debate. But denying his existance is a little trickier.
Ahh... thank you kindly. I found what appears to be an authoritative site, where you can order "Hardware Wars, Special Edition" (I'm not sure I like the sound of that) for $10. I don't know if a special edition (featuring updated special effects from LA computer artists) would ruin the charm of the original
Don't forget another parody of Star Wars, a TV special I believe. I couldn't find a reference to it anywhere (except for what seems to be a fan-fiction of the same name, but I doubt they can be the same since the fan-fiction is dated 1997 and the special I saw was in the mid-80s).
I believe it was called Trash Wars. The details are extremely blurry, but the included:
A Harrison Ford look-alike named "Ham Salad."
An old guy named "Oggy Ben-Doggy."
Storm troopers who looked suspiciously like garbage cans. Luke and co often beat them by simply kicking them over.
If anyone has more information on this, I'd love to hear it.:)
Ohhhh... What is it Oggy Ben-Doggy? Did you suddently feel as if millions of voices were crying out in pain and terror, only to be suddenly silenced? No, it was just a slight headache..
Hmm. I would much rather put up with the evils of our current society, and yes, that includes disease, teen pregnancy, and so on, than give up my right to privacy. Sure we'll live in a nice sterile society, but we'll have a lot less to live for. What if you happen to be gay and in the closet? Those people -need- a fair amount of privacy. But no, of course, they must be doing something wrong if they want privacy. There are so many other examples I could post as well. You may be willing to live in a society where everyone has the same mindset, but I'm not. And our culture is not so accepting of anything out of the norm that a lack of privacy is a safe thing.
I believe in freedom. I believe that giving up freedom for security would be a huge loss.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? If someone does something like make a nick like "HahahahahahaMyNickHasWayTooManyChars", that person is going to get kicked out of a lot of channels until he changes it fast. It's a self-correcting system.
Oh, that's a simple one; I'm surprised you even need to ask yourself that. :) Humans have created an environment (at least in 1st-world countries) where "survival of the fittest" is no longer law. Now it's basically "survival of everyone," and the most fit tend towards being economically successful (not counting other factors like being destroyed by those more fit, chance/luck, etc).
I've always hated this type of logic. "Hey, Company1 did something REALLY bad, so when Company2 does something sortof bad, hey, we shouldn't fault them. At least they're not doing what Company1 did."
How right one company is does not depend one bit on how wrong another was.
That's a nice one. Then again, it's common sense. Unfortunately, common sense often isn't.
Second there was a principle that somebody who accused somebody else of a crime and could not prove it had to suffer the punishment for that crime.
Oh my, that's awful. A smaller step in that direction might be nice, but still... should the prosecutors in the O.J. Simpson case have been sentenced to hefty jail time? Or maybe even the death penalty? They prosecuted an innocent man, because Simpson was not proven guilty, right? Right? It all depends on how you define "proven guilty." I think we can all agree that our legal system is a little too broken to support item #2 above.
Here's the flaw in your logic: Gun control makes it harder for for people to legally get guns. Big difference.
Homosexuality is against natural law.
Racial integration is against natural law. (Remember? We're naturally the "better race.")
Too many people try to argue "natural" law who have absolutely no clue as what actually is "natural." That is, what actually happens in nature.
Here is why I think the Playstation2 will beat the Dreamcast:
Hey, it worked in Spaceballs, didn't it?
For God's sake, please don't tell me a Mel Brooks movie was a visionary look at the future.
Actually, anything coming through through the modem line is information. Porn is as much information as a math textbook. It's all in how you desire to interpret it.
I honestly wish more ISPs did this. That is, if you abuse your account to, say, spam a billion people, more happens than a simple "Oh you bad boy, no more account for you!"
Tell that to people who have no insurance. Then again, it has always been convenient to ignore the lower class throughout much of American history. If you don't have to look at them, the system must be working just fine, eh?
The idea is to improve: things should not always just be the same from generation to generation. The reason we would want to change the system is to build a better one. A system which in itself will be replaced by something else. Idealistic, sure. But it's good to try to replace an imperfect system with something that is better.
Sure they can! I anticipate a few complimentary boxes of Visual Basic sent to the "Linux programmer's" house. };>
Now now, you shouldn't stereotype high tech educations. I recently came out of a 4-year (*laugh*) university with an engineering degree, and one of the requirements for the degree was a full year of humanities. I spent mine on classical literature.
Yes, and I would certainly call that a "good thing," but that's a little different from what I was asking. You're refering to preventing a spoofed 1.1.1.1 packet from entering the 1.1.1.1 network. What I'm asking is why don't more places prevent 1.1.1.1 from sending out a spoofed 2.2.2.2 packet? 2.2.2.2 isn't on that network, so why shouldn't packets heading out "from" those addresses be blocked? I'm trying to think of a legitimate reason for allowing these false from addresses in IP packets, but I can't at the moment.
Here's my question: Why aren't more ISPs filtering out IP packets that have a "From" address of a machine not covered by the ISP? If a router services an ip block of... say... 192.168.0.*, why doesn't it drop packets that don't come "from" that address? I suppose the big question is, why is address spoofing even an issue anymore? Is there some sort of roaming technology that might break? Can someone point out what would be back about this?
It's like Windows 2000 Unleaded, but it runs a little smoother and is somewhat more expensive...
Hardware Wars
I believe it was called Trash Wars. The details are extremely blurry, but the included:
If anyone has more information on this, I'd love to hear it. :)
Ohhhh...
What is it Oggy Ben-Doggy? Did you suddently feel as if millions of voices were crying out in pain and terror, only to be suddenly silenced?
No, it was just a slight headache..
I believe in freedom. I believe that giving up freedom for security would be a huge loss.