a triangle would work if you not only modify the curvature of the aspects of the road, but also the road itself. you would ride inside a giant (or small) ring-road (loop) as opposed to a plane-flat road.
Given, many hosts run the same OS (Linux, Windows, whatever) and the same binaries. Even if you compile the source from scratch the resulting binary is likely to be identical to other binaries on other machines.
This leads to a situation where malicious code can rely on things like stack position and such, enabling it to insert its code into it.
Idea:
Is it possible to modify the compiler or binary-format to gather some unique information from the host it is running on and modify the binary in a way that it behaves in a unique way on this machine? For example in a way so that malicious code can not predict the position where it can insert itself, resulting in a crash rather than a compromise of the machine.
Pros:
- All malicious code would be obsolete if it doesnt know the "secret" of the machine and the method it uses to "scramble" its binaries and/or its memory. - All remote/local exploits in any form would be converted to a DoS, which I think is not as dangerous as a compromise.
Cons:
- Would presumably make debugging of programs even worse than it is now. - Insert "You stupid *%@&, you dont understand" here.
Please reply, as I feel that I may have missed something important.
If you really consider this (thinking of FreeBSD), use the old branch (4.x). I managed to crash the kernel of 5.1 repeatedly by copying stuff via scp.:-( They apparently need to do some homework on the new branch. The old one is quite stable though.
No problem!... Bruce Willis will bust us out!... Our super-geniuses will come up with a 5min to deadline plan and blast this bugger to pieces!... It won't hit us anyway, because it did not hit us up to today.
Tell me Mr.Politician, what is more important: Survival of mankind or playing the powermonger game with your politician-buddys?
I say, if politicians (which are by the way trusted with OUR FATE!) behave like they do today they are gambling with the chance of survival for the entire human race. This should be considered a crime and prosecuted accordingly.
First you have to diferentiate service and protocol. A protocol enables services. Services use resources, a protocol does not. To create a protocol which does what you want, you don't need a huge server farm or a brain the size of a planet.
So because the obstacles to enable something you want are so low, it all boils down to purely selfish intents. Just like the spirit of the free software movement. Which nobody can deny that its real.
Take a random person who uses IQC for example. He/She has a friend who uses AOL-IM or worse MSN. They can't IM with each other. It happens that person 1 or 2 is a programmer who understands how the internet really works. He creates his own IM System protocol (and perhaps a demo implementation) as a hobby, which isn't rocket science after all. His IM system is extensible to include all other IM systems. So then (if anyone cares to provide this service, or if there is no need for such a service because it works p2p) he can get his own personal value from it. He can communicate with his friend.
Another alternative were that he creates a IM client that can connect to many IM services, which gives him seemingly the same value, but is not. He does not create a new protocol, he creates a new software. Only this particular software can then do what he wants.
With a IM system, that anyone can use, because it is only a set of protocols, anyone can write a client for that. So there are even more possibilities.:-)
Sooooooo... to get back to your question. Who provides it? If there is a open IM protocol then its up to anyone who cares, to provide this service and figure out how to generate revenue. If the protocol allows that (if its not p2p or something similar), he is fine to generate as much revenue from it as he can. How he does it is up to him.
Jabber is a current open IM system, which also extensible to other networks. A good starting point is jabber.org. Y!, AOL, MSN etc. are closed protocols. Which means the set of communication instructions is secret. Nobody can use Y! unless he uses Y!-Messenger or figures out how it works (which is hard and not as benefiting then creating a new system).
Jabber is even more like the internet, because you can connect small IM servers to build one large network. The messages get routed between the servers, so even the cost of providing this service is cheap. You dont need a server for 1 Mio people. You only need to host as much as you want. Anyone with a server on the net can have its very own part of the Jabber network. The gateways to the legacy IM systems like AOL and such, are still a kludge because they need to be enabled on every server. The better way were that all the IM providers would use the Jabber network.
But as the article states, this companys don't understand the internet.
Re:Could you guys explain something to me?
on
What The Internet Isn't
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Youre confusing value with revenue. Which is wrong. Value is nothing you can hold in your hands like money. The internets value araises from its possibilities. The more possibilities you have to use it, the more valuable it is. Its so simple.
If you take IM as an example, the possibility to not communicate with people using other IM systems than you, is a loss of value... because there is something you can not do.
If you can reverse that situation, you actually build value. See above. No talk of revenue.
Your are of course right. I am not aware of every bit of aspect of the SE, as it would require a lifetime worth of study. Do you?
I doubt you can calculate every nuance of orbit-subtlty it would require to make this whole thing work. Not to speak of the strength of the material and the inner structure it would require to stop cracks from distributing further. [Insert favourite field of research here] This is left to the experts.
ALL I say is, do not judge it beforehand. May be there is emotion involved, but is that a problem?
It CAN be used as a silly filetransfer-protocol but it is more. It is in fact a fully fledged file-transfer suite, including things like recursive directory transfer, preservation of filepermissions, filedate, scripted transfers, etc. and back on the BBS Days only a small part of Kermit was used.
For DOS BBSs Zmodem or even better, Hydra (you could chat while transfering many files in both directions!) were much better.
In Fact the dictating method here is NOT belief, but
lies in the technology itself. If it can be built,
it will be. If not... not.
So no reason to be jerky about it. To build one may be a important step forward to becoming perhaps an interplanetary society. So it should be relevant to build actually one. If its made of super-duper nanotube2000 or simply a uniform brick of diamond does not matter. As long as it is built.
If there were no script-changes the movies would suck. Tolkien wrote LOTR for himself and not for an audience. LOTR has many extremely lengthy and wearisome passages.
Just imagine a 1:1 adaptation of the Council Of Elrond. Half the audience would leave the cinema or go to sleep.
You may be offended by script-changes though, if you identify yourself with a changed character, who knows.
Just found something... OSRAM is producing a LED-Package not to form a display as itself, but rather a backlight for common displays (presumably LCD, but they say nothing about it specifically).
The good thing they say is, that the colour temperature can be adjusted with that technique. As far as I am informed this is not the case with current LCDs? Or am I wrong?
Could be somewhat in between the both technologies. Sort of bringing "the best of both worlds" together.
Doubt it. The power-supply must be somewhere. It happents it is at the backside of the OLEDS and not in front of them, as nobody could see any pixels then.;) Takes much room.
Meaning: The transparency may be achieved if the pixels are big enough, but then the resolution would suffer.
they could allready do it unmanned. and even if they build a base on moon, a attack from there would be unlikely. a missile from there would be underway for many days.
for them it would be easyer to drop some nukes here on earth. and i dont see that coming. if you need a boogie-man, go to north-korea.
i think that even if you have "trusted"-computing, this will not help. a "untrustworth" entity could fake the "trust" and steal your input. i don't know if this is bad, but it is possible.:)
Slashdot Mirror
a triangle would work if you not only modify the curvature of the aspects of the road, but also the road itself. you would ride inside a giant (or small) ring-road (loop) as opposed to a plane-flat road.
Given, many hosts run the same OS (Linux, Windows, whatever) and the same binaries. Even if you compile the source from scratch the resulting binary is likely to be identical to other binaries on other machines.
This leads to a situation where malicious code can rely on things like stack position and such, enabling it to insert its code into it.
Idea:
Is it possible to modify the compiler or binary-format to gather some unique information from the host it is running on and modify the binary in a way that it behaves in a unique way on this machine?
For example in a way so that malicious code can not predict the position where it can insert itself, resulting in a crash rather than a compromise of the machine.
Pros:
- All malicious code would be obsolete if it doesnt know the "secret" of the machine and the method it uses to "scramble" its binaries and/or its memory.
- All remote/local exploits in any form would be converted to a DoS, which I think is not as dangerous as a compromise.
Cons:
- Would presumably make debugging of programs even worse than it is now.
- Insert "You stupid *%@&, you dont understand" here.
Please reply, as I feel that I may have missed something important.
--
LuckyStarr
If you really consider this (thinking of FreeBSD), use the old branch (4.x). I managed to crash the kernel of 5.1 repeatedly by copying stuff via scp. :-( They apparently need to do some homework on the new branch. The old one is quite stable though.
No problem! ... Bruce Willis will bust us out! ... Our super-geniuses will come up with a 5min to deadline plan and blast this bugger to pieces! ... It won't hit us anyway, because it did not hit us up to today.
Tell me Mr.Politician, what is more important: Survival of mankind or playing the powermonger game with your politician-buddys?
I say, if politicians (which are by the way trusted with OUR FATE!) behave like they do today they are gambling with the chance of survival for the entire human race. This should be considered a crime and prosecuted accordingly.
First you have to diferentiate service and protocol. A protocol enables services. Services use resources, a protocol does not. To create a protocol which does what you want, you don't need a huge server farm or a brain the size of a planet.
:-)
So because the obstacles to enable something you want are so low, it all boils down to purely selfish intents. Just like the spirit of the free software movement. Which nobody can deny that its real.
Take a random person who uses IQC for example. He/She has a friend who uses AOL-IM or worse MSN. They can't IM with each other. It happens that person 1 or 2 is a programmer who understands how the internet really works. He creates his own IM System protocol (and perhaps a demo implementation) as a hobby, which isn't rocket science after all. His IM system is extensible to include all other IM systems. So then (if anyone cares to provide this service, or if there is no need for such a service because it works p2p) he can get his own personal value from it. He can communicate with his friend.
Another alternative were that he creates a IM client that can connect to many IM services, which gives him seemingly the same value, but is not. He does not create a new protocol, he creates a new software. Only this particular software can then do what he wants.
With a IM system, that anyone can use, because it is only a set of protocols, anyone can write a client for that. So there are even more possibilities.
Sooooooo... to get back to your question. Who provides it? If there is a open IM protocol then its up to anyone who cares, to provide this service and figure out how to generate revenue. If the protocol allows that (if its not p2p or something similar), he is fine to generate as much revenue from it as he can. How he does it is up to him.
Jabber is a current open IM system, which also extensible to other networks. A good starting point is jabber.org. Y!, AOL, MSN etc. are closed protocols. Which means the set of communication instructions is secret. Nobody can use Y! unless he uses Y!-Messenger or figures out how it works (which is hard and not as benefiting then creating a new system).
Jabber is even more like the internet, because you can connect small IM servers to build one large network. The messages get routed between the servers, so even the cost of providing this service is cheap. You dont need a server for 1 Mio people. You only need to host as much as you want. Anyone with a server on the net can have its very own part of the Jabber network. The gateways to the legacy IM systems like AOL and such, are still a kludge because they need to be enabled on every server. The better way were that all the IM providers would use the Jabber network.
But as the article states, this companys don't understand the internet.
Youre confusing value with revenue. Which is wrong. Value is nothing you can hold in your hands like money. The internets value araises from its possibilities. The more possibilities you have to use it, the more valuable it is. Its so simple.
If you take IM as an example, the possibility to not communicate with people using other IM systems than you, is a loss of value... because there is something you can not do.
If you can reverse that situation, you actually build value. See above. No talk of revenue.
Your are of course right. I am not aware of every bit of aspect of the SE, as it would require a lifetime worth of study. Do you?
I doubt you can calculate every nuance of orbit-subtlty it would require to make this whole thing work. Not to speak of the strength of the material and the inner structure it would require to stop cracks from distributing further. [Insert favourite field of research here] This is left to the experts.
ALL I say is, do not judge it beforehand. May be there is emotion involved, but is that a problem?
Kermit is NOT comparable to Zmodem.
It CAN be used as a silly filetransfer-protocol but it is more. It is in fact a fully fledged file-transfer suite, including things like recursive directory transfer, preservation of filepermissions, filedate, scripted transfers, etc. and back on the BBS Days only a small part of Kermit was used.
For DOS BBSs Zmodem or even better, Hydra (you could chat while transfering many files in both directions!) were much better.
I apreciate your scepticism, but...
In Fact the dictating method here is NOT belief, but lies in the technology itself. If it can be built, it will be. If not... not.
So no reason to be jerky about it. To build one may be a important step forward to becoming perhaps an interplanetary society. So it should be relevant to build actually one. If its made of super-duper nanotube2000 or simply a uniform brick of diamond does not matter. As long as it is built.
If there were no script-changes the movies would suck. Tolkien wrote LOTR for himself and not for an audience. LOTR has many extremely lengthy and wearisome passages.
Just imagine a 1:1 adaptation of the Council Of Elrond. Half the audience would leave the cinema or go to sleep.
You may be offended by script-changes though, if you identify yourself with a changed character, who knows.
Just found something... OSRAM is producing a
LED-Package not to form a display as itself, but
rather a backlight for common displays (presumably
LCD, but they say nothing about it specifically).
The good thing they say is, that the colour
temperature can be adjusted with that technique.
As far as I am informed this is not the case with
current LCDs? Or am I wrong?
Could be somewhat in between the both technologies.
Sort of bringing "the best of both worlds" together.
Link to the Osram Website:
http://www.osram-os.com/news/news_multiled.html
Doubt it. The power-supply must be somewhere. It happents it is at the backside of the OLEDS and not in front of them, as nobody could see any pixels then. ;) Takes much room.
Meaning: The transparency may be achieved if the pixels are big enough, but then the resolution would suffer.
You wrote:
;)
:)
[i]Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.[/i]
Nice analogy. If you see space and time as one it
is true. Astonishing.
ps. Nice post. Someone should offer "Robot-Training",
just as people today go to "Dog-Trainings" to
teach their dogs to behave.
somewhere nearer the aequator. browse at space.com for more information.
humor noted. :)
BUT!
they could allready do it unmanned. and even if
they build a base on moon, a attack from there
would be unlikely. a missile from there would be underway for many days.
for them it would be easyer to drop some nukes here
on earth. and i dont see that coming. if you need
a boogie-man, go to north-korea.
we especially need colonization if we want to
survive.
there are many dangers we face by just being on
this planet. to name a few: asteroids, comets,
labile weather conditions, solar flares, etc.
if we spread to other planets, we create a much
higher bio-diversity than it can be achieved on
earth AND in case of a cataclysm mankind will
survive!
Here is the draft RFC:
c h- dns-rr-smtp-02.txt
- ds protocol-04.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-danis
It works similar to the SPF method, except it doesn't abuse the TXT-RRs. Instead it introduces a new DNS-RR, the RMX-Record.
The RMX specifies an IP, an IP-Range or a NOT-IP / NOT-IP-Range.
This approach is (imo):
a. cleaner
b. more efficient (uses less diskspace)
c. more intuitive for the DNS-Users
Downside:
- DNS-Servers need to be upgraded to deliver RMX
- Mailservers need to be upgraded to honor RMX
For completeness heres another approach:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-fecyk
This seems to be the inspiration for SPF, and I dont like Fecyk's approache either. It does also abuse the TXT-RRs, which sucks (imo).
Proof? Where can we find this information?
I do not know when Microsoft will join the action but they will of course sue IBM for messing with their buddy SCO. ;)
i'm not sure that tachyons are real. some of the string-theories predict that there is no such particle.
i think that even if you have "trusted"-computing, this will not help. a "untrustworth" entity could fake the "trust" and steal your input. i don't know if this is bad, but it is possible. :)
in a recent posting here on slashdot, there was an interview with some kernel-guy of microsoft.
:)
he stated that they try to build a console-only windows, but thats very hard because of totaly crazy dependencies between the various dlls.
for example: printing requires a gui.
he said that it may be that the final version of a command-line only windows will not have all the features than the gui one.
imagine. they are waaaay behind unix/linux/bsd in that area. he even said that.
mod up, not down. we want to hear both sides of the story!!!
I can confirm that. Given ENOUGH knowledge can enable you to run windows that long without failure.
:D
But standard MCSEs just won't help. You are in a priviledged position.
ever seen a coder becoming a millionaire, while working for a company? these millionaires are for sure only management dudes.