You might count them as being the same, but they're clearly not the same actual injury. Actually, many times they are. As was pointed out in the original article.
Many times, what differentiates between losing a limb and keeping the limb attached is what medical attention is available and how soon it is available.
Which is what the article was all about. Injuries that would have resulted in the loss of the limb can be mitigated with the new blood shunt so that the limb is not lost.
9,500 injuries that mean that they cannot return to duty. Blind in one eye may or may not be a factor. It depends upon the job. The same with deaf in one ear. The same with limping.
It seems that they're using an extremely narrow set of criteria. I would count being blinded in one eye the same as losing a hand/arm. And being deafened in one ear. And being partially paralyzed.
Ocean voyage. Fighting off post-apocalyptic pirates to get to the seed storage site only to find that it's submerged and you have to fight mutant sea creatures to get inside so you can save your village with the last non-mutated vegetables in the world.
Kind of like a cross between "The Postman" and "Waterworld".
"But because high packet rates aren't always triggered by worms, the new technology can also determine whether a suspected host is actually infected and release clean systems.
PWC can quickly unblock mistakenly blocked hosts," said Liu, an associate professor of information sciences and technology at Penn State.
It appears to be magic.
I can see isolating a box when its connection pattern changes. But I don't see any way to identify whether it has been infected without a person looking at it or comparing it to existing signature files.
Why include things like "a mini word processor"? That gets into too much interpretation of what "mini" is.
I prefer to define an OS as the code that controls the local hardware.
If the OS allows some other app to control the local hardware then that OS has a "vulnerability" and is not "secure". There are lots of examples of that in history.
Apps run on the OS. And app can be something such as Java which can run apps itself. But Java should never be touching the local hardware.
This will be another "unfunded mandate" where they'll just fine you if you fail to spend the money to comply.
All in the name of "protecting the children" and "War against Terror".
The question will be, how much money will an ISP have to spend to record everything, in a secure fashion, for years and years? And at what point will the that expense be LESS than any fine that will be levied for non-compliance?
No flamethrowers have been employed by me, in this thread, so far.
Your brief comment still contains more information than the original article did. In fact, with a little bit of work it COULD be far better than the original. And I do mean "little".
#1. You've identified apt-build. 1a. What happens when the package is updated? Does it automatically recompile itself? Does it change the upgradeable status? Does it have ANY effect on the ease of upgrade/maintaining a Debian/Ubuntu system? (No, No, Yes - you have to recompile the updates each time). Is there an easy SCRIPT to use to do it automagically?
#2. What apps would be the best to recompile in terms of memory savings or increased speed? I'm talking about the default apps installed on a default install.
#3. Speaking of default installs, what services are installed, by default, on a default install and what do they really mean? What ones COULD I disable (and how to disable them easily) based upon whether I want specific functionality or not (I don't use bluetooth, I don't have a scanner, etc). And... how do I enable them again when I do want that functionality (I just bought a bluetooth scanner).
Recompiling certain apps or libraries so that they are optimized for size and targeted to the specific CPU you are using can yield some memory gains. The Gentoo distribution is perfect for this, as you can easily recompile some or all of your system with the precise compilation flags you choose. Unfortunately, this is likely to be quite a lengthy process on an old machine.
And you aren't going to explain HOW to do so on Ubuntu, are you?
This "article" is practically content free. It compares Firefox's memory usage to Lynx. What the fuck?
How about some REAL information? Not "advice" such as
A good place to begin is with the services that are started automatically when the system boots -- though you need to be careful here so as to not remove anything that is necessary for your system to run. You will need to do some research into what is required by your particular distribution, and on how services are configured, as this will vary by distribution.
And the distribution you WERE talking about was Ubuntu. How about some FACTS that are directly related to Ubuntu?
A better title for this article would have been "Generic advice on how to see how much memory an application may use on Linux".
You really really believe your wife is monogamous..... then she's busted in a prostitution sting. With your best friend. And now she wants a divorce. And she'll take 1/2 of everything you own.
But this brings up the crux of the problem: should companies assume that any IP in a dynamic range is a spammer email?
That is the prerogative of the company who you are trying to send to.
The fact is that 99.9%+ of the messages that come from dynamic ranges ARE spam from zombies. That's 999 spam messages to 1 legit message.
Now, remember that someone has to dig through the spam that is delivered to his/her mailbox to find the legit messages. The possibility of missing important messages goes UP as more spam is delivered.
And in that scenario, the sender would NEVER KNOW that there was a problem because his message was accepted and delivered... and accidentally deleted because it was buried in a bunch of p3n-is ads.
So, the best solution is to reject all messages from dynamic addresses... at SMTP time... so the sender will know that his message was rejected and can take alternate approaches to sending it. And the message is more likely to be seen and recognized as legit.
They cannot even monitor their email logs for rejected messages... so they can remove those addresses from their list... yet they're supposedly savvy enough to maintain a database of usernames and passwords tied to email addresses? For years? Accurately?
No, this is just about making it more difficult for you to "opt-out".
Listen up "email marketing companies", you want to make it slightly easier for me to unsubscribe than it is to auto-forward you messages to a blacklist. I'm going to take the easiest route, the same as you did.
#1. Since you're sending out HTML email anyway, why not put the unsubscribe button at the top of the message? If you're going to be funny and make it an "unsubscribe from this particular spam run" then you need to add a second button, again at the top of the message, that will unsubscribe the recipient from ALL of your mailings. ALL of them. Not most of them. Not some of them. Not everything except the ones the marketing department really wants to get out. ALL OF THEM.
#2. If that's too much work for you, try an automatic opt-out program. Send a message once a month saying that you're still subscribed... but that your subscription will end on (insert date) of this year UNLESS you click on the "continue my subscription for another year" button at the top of the message or copy this URL to your browser.
I am not going to waste MY time trying to find where you've hidden the unsubscribe option.
Spammers often do not have an unsubscribe button/link (those that do usually collect the addresses). If I cannot INSTANTLY find the unsubscribe button then I'm going to treat you like a spammer.
Oh, and one other item - USE YOUR OWN FUCKING DOMAIN. If I look at the headers and I see that you claim to be a@b.com but the sending server's IP is tied to c.com then I'm going to blacklist c.com as a spammer.
Okay, one last item, if I put the sending server's IP address into a browser and get a generic "unsubscribe" page, yeah, you're a spammer.
If I put c.com (from the above example) into a browser and you don't have a webpage, yeah, you're a spammer.
Same reasons. The more publicity, the better. If Oracle believes in it enough to offer support, everyone else can feel a little bit easier about using it.
So, before, it was necessary and legal and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it and whomever leaked the information on it was a traitor.
Now, it's back to the Court and warrants are being issued and there's no need to take this to the SCOTUS because we're not doing anything illegal... now.
Just for that reason this MUST be seen by the SCOTUS.
Publishing these IP addresses is complete rubbish. It'll point to some machine on the net along a chain of connections.
If the crackers know what they're doing, the logs on the proxy are going straight to/dev/nul so they don't ever leave a trace on the hard drive.
BUT there is a chance that the local law enforcement can put a sniffer on that connection at the ISP level and track the connection that way.
The major problems with that is... #1. Coordinating law enforcement efforts in various countries
#2. Educating the enforcement agencies in those countries
#3. Finally busting the cracker... and charging him with what? The laws vary depending upon his country.
Even if all of that was accomplished, there would be another zombie master along in a few days to take over the vulnerable machines that are left behind.
I'm not saying that it's the schools responsibility to deal with episodes which happen at MacD's but that behviour will, inevitably, be part of a pattern which is repeated in school which is their responsibility, both social, and, in the UK, legal.
Emphasis added.
But that isn't what the discussion is about. Nor is it what the article was about.
This is about whether the school has the right to interfere in non-school activities during non-school hours on non-school grounds.
If someone is being bullied at school, that is one thing.
If someone is being laughed at in school because he had to clean up crap at his non-school job during non-school hours on non-school property, that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS.
No, but is does have the need to teach them how to behave there. Education should be about a lot more than the three 'R's, it's where you learn social skills as well.
Here, let me put it in real world terms for you.
A bunch of kids are working at McDonald's after school. Someone craps all over the bathroom. The manager is NOT going to assign the most popular kid to clean it up, is he? He's going to assign the unpopular kid. That's life. And that kid is going to be teased about it the next day at school. That's life.
Now, that kid can either learn the "social skill" of "dealing with it" from the experience or he can declare himself "emotionally devastated" by the "trauma".
No, it is NOT up to the school to "teach them how to behave there". The kids will learn it (if they do learn it) from the other kids and from their family and so forth.
So the kids are working in the food service industry after school. Does the school have the right to tell them ANYTHING about how they'll behave there?
After all, bullying at work can affect them at school when they have to sit in the same classroom as the person who is bullying them at work.
The school's authority ends when the school day ends and where the school grounds end.
"Nazi" is a particular group with particular views. Bush doesn't hate Jews. He is not a Nazi.
Bush hates the rule of law. He hates having to share power with the other two branches of government.
Bush is a proto-Fascist. He does not care about the Rights of the People if they get in his way of performing his "job" the way he sees fit. To him, the Presidency is above the Law. Fascism is seductive. It promises "safety" and "order". And all it asks is that some people you probably didn't like anyway lose their Rights.
In a Democracy, the President is constrained by the Law. He must choose the courses which achieve the objects WITHOUT violating the Rights of the People. Any of the People. Any of their Rights.
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government is more important than the Rights of the People.
Spammers will often try secondary (and lower) MX's because there's a good chance that the anti-spam AND ANTI-VIRUS systems on those machines are weaker (read "outdated") than on the primary MX.
The more machines you have to maintain, the more likely you are to focus your efforts on the most critical ones and just let the other slide. Spammers are happy to exploit this.
"Greylisting" is where an SMTP server refuses messages for a certain amount of time. You set the criteria on why the message would be refused and how long the server would refuse to accept it.
It's been pretty much defeated now because so many spammers have their machines try to hammer the message through until it does go through.
I'm using greylisting right now and the only advantage is that many times a spammer will end up on an RBL during the 15 minutes that I'm refusing his messages.
Remember, the spammers have, effectively, unlimted bandwidth and unlimited processing power at their disposal.
Slashdot Mirror
You might count them as being the same, but they're clearly not the same actual injury.
Actually, many times they are. As was pointed out in the original article.
Many times, what differentiates between losing a limb and keeping the limb attached is what medical attention is available and how soon it is available.
Which is what the article was all about. Injuries that would have resulted in the loss of the limb can be mitigated with the new blood shunt so that the limb is not lost.
Try reading the article, okay?
Again, 5% & 95%. 5% is 500, so 95% is 9,500.
9,500 injuries that mean that they cannot return to duty. Blind in one eye may or may not be a factor. It depends upon the job. The same with deaf in one ear. The same with limping.
It seems that they're using an extremely narrow set of criteria. I would count being blinded in one eye the same as losing a hand/arm. And being deafened in one ear. And being partially paralyzed.
Okay, so we're only talking "wounded" here.
Huh? 95% of the troops who cannot return to duty are not amputees? If they all their body parts and are not dead, then why can't they return to duty?
Ocean voyage. Fighting off post-apocalyptic pirates to get to the seed storage site only to find that it's submerged and you have to fight mutant sea creatures to get inside so you can save your village with the last non-mutated vegetables in the world.
:)
Kind of like a cross between "The Postman" and "Waterworld".
Okay, I lied about the "good" part.
It appears to be magic.
I can see isolating a box when its connection pattern changes. But I don't see any way to identify whether it has been infected without a person looking at it or comparing it to existing signature files.
Why include things like "a mini word processor"? That gets into too much interpretation of what "mini" is.
I prefer to define an OS as the code that controls the local hardware.
If the OS allows some other app to control the local hardware then that OS has a "vulnerability" and is not "secure". There are lots of examples of that in history.
Apps run on the OS. And app can be something such as Java which can run apps itself. But Java should never be touching the local hardware.
This will be another "unfunded mandate" where they'll just fine you if you fail to spend the money to comply.
All in the name of "protecting the children" and "War against Terror".
The question will be, how much money will an ISP have to spend to record everything, in a secure fashion, for years and years? And at what point will the that expense be LESS than any fine that will be levied for non-compliance?
Bruce has more at his website.
http://www.schneier.com/essay-155.html
As he says, we really should have two different words for the "feeling of security" and "security".
Your brief comment still contains more information than the original article did. In fact, with a little bit of work it COULD be far better than the original. And I do mean "little".
#1. You've identified apt-build.
1a. What happens when the package is updated? Does it automatically recompile itself? Does it change the upgradeable status? Does it have ANY effect on the ease of upgrade/maintaining a Debian/Ubuntu system? (No, No, Yes - you have to recompile the updates each time). Is there an easy SCRIPT to use to do it automagically?
#2. What apps would be the best to recompile in terms of memory savings or increased speed? I'm talking about the default apps installed on a default install.
#3. Speaking of default installs, what services are installed, by default, on a default install and what do they really mean? What ones COULD I disable (and how to disable them easily) based upon whether I want specific functionality or not (I don't use bluetooth, I don't have a scanner, etc). And
THAT would be a useful article.
This "article" is practically content free. It compares Firefox's memory usage to Lynx. What the fuck?
How about some REAL information? Not "advice" such as And the distribution you WERE talking about was Ubuntu. How about some FACTS that are directly related to Ubuntu?
A better title for this article would have been "Generic advice on how to see how much memory an application may use on Linux".
You really really believe your wife is monogamous ..... then she's busted in a prostitution sting. With your best friend. And now she wants a divorce. And she'll take 1/2 of everything you own.
That way you can afford to send me a letter the next TWO times that the price goes up.
If we're talking money, you do NOT depend upon email. Did you miss the whole point of this thread? Email is NOT sufficiently reliable.
The fact is that 99.9%+ of the messages that come from dynamic ranges ARE spam from zombies. That's 999 spam messages to 1 legit message.
Now, remember that someone has to dig through the spam that is delivered to his/her mailbox to find the legit messages. The possibility of missing important messages goes UP as more spam is delivered.
And in that scenario, the sender would NEVER KNOW that there was a problem because his message was accepted and delivered
So, the best solution is to reject all messages from dynamic addresses
They cannot even monitor their email logs for rejected messages ... so they can remove those addresses from their list ... yet they're supposedly savvy enough to maintain a database of usernames and passwords tied to email addresses? For years? Accurately?
No, this is just about making it more difficult for you to "opt-out".
Listen up "email marketing companies", you want to make it slightly easier for me to unsubscribe than it is to auto-forward you messages to a blacklist. I'm going to take the easiest route, the same as you did.
#1. Since you're sending out HTML email anyway, why not put the unsubscribe button at the top of the message? If you're going to be funny and make it an "unsubscribe from this particular spam run" then you need to add a second button, again at the top of the message, that will unsubscribe the recipient from ALL of your mailings. ALL of them. Not most of them. Not some of them. Not everything except the ones the marketing department really wants to get out. ALL OF THEM.
... but that your subscription will end on (insert date) of this year UNLESS you click on the "continue my subscription for another year" button at the top of the message or copy this URL to your browser.
#2. If that's too much work for you, try an automatic opt-out program. Send a message once a month saying that you're still subscribed
I am not going to waste MY time trying to find where you've hidden the unsubscribe option.
Spammers often do not have an unsubscribe button/link (those that do usually collect the addresses). If I cannot INSTANTLY find the unsubscribe button then I'm going to treat you like a spammer.
Oh, and one other item - USE YOUR OWN FUCKING DOMAIN.
If I look at the headers and I see that you claim to be a@b.com but the sending server's IP is tied to c.com then I'm going to blacklist c.com as a spammer.
Okay, one last item, if I put the sending server's IP address into a browser and get a generic "unsubscribe" page, yeah, you're a spammer.
If I put c.com (from the above example) into a browser and you don't have a webpage, yeah, you're a spammer.
Same reasons. The more publicity, the better. If Oracle believes in it enough to offer support, everyone else can feel a little bit easier about using it.
So, before, it was necessary and legal and there was absolutely nothing wrong with it and whomever leaked the information on it was a traitor.
... now.
Now, it's back to the Court and warrants are being issued and there's no need to take this to the SCOTUS because we're not doing anything illegal
Just for that reason this MUST be seen by the SCOTUS.
This is still a Democracy.
BUT there is a chance that the local law enforcement can put a sniffer on that connection at the ISP level and track the connection that way.
The major problems with that is
#1. Coordinating law enforcement efforts in various countries
#2. Educating the enforcement agencies in those countries
#3. Finally busting the cracker
Even if all of that was accomplished, there would be another zombie master along in a few days to take over the vulnerable machines that are left behind.
Emphasis added.
But that isn't what the discussion is about. Nor is it what the article was about.
This is about whether the school has the right to interfere in non-school activities during non-school hours on non-school grounds.
If someone is being bullied at school, that is one thing.
If someone is being laughed at in school because he had to clean up crap at his non-school job during non-school hours on non-school property, that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS.
Here, let me put it in real world terms for you.
A bunch of kids are working at McDonald's after school. Someone craps all over the bathroom. The manager is NOT going to assign the most popular kid to clean it up, is he? He's going to assign the unpopular kid. That's life. And that kid is going to be teased about it the next day at school. That's life.
Now, that kid can either learn the "social skill" of "dealing with it" from the experience or he can declare himself "emotionally devastated" by the "trauma".
No, it is NOT up to the school to "teach them how to behave there". The kids will learn it (if they do learn it) from the other kids and from their family and so forth.
So the kids are working in the food service industry after school. Does the school have the right to tell them ANYTHING about how they'll behave there?
After all, bullying at work can affect them at school when they have to sit in the same classroom as the person who is bullying them at work.
The school's authority ends when the school day ends and where the school grounds end.
"Nazi" is a particular group with particular views. Bush doesn't hate Jews. He is not a Nazi.
Bush hates the rule of law. He hates having to share power with the other two branches of government.
Bush is a proto-Fascist. He does not care about the Rights of the People if they get in his way of performing his "job" the way he sees fit. To him, the Presidency is above the Law. Fascism is seductive. It promises "safety" and "order". And all it asks is that some people you probably didn't like anyway lose their Rights.
In a Democracy, the President is constrained by the Law. He must choose the courses which achieve the objects WITHOUT violating the Rights of the People. Any of the People. Any of their Rights.
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government is more important than the Rights of the People.
Fuck just saying that The Constitution does not explicitly grant that Right ... I want to know SPECIFICALLY who does NOT have that Right.
And how in the fuck he gets that from our Constitution.
And why Bush has not fired him for that comment.
Spammers will often try secondary (and lower) MX's because there's a good chance that the anti-spam AND ANTI-VIRUS systems on those machines are weaker (read "outdated") than on the primary MX.
The more machines you have to maintain, the more likely you are to focus your efforts on the most critical ones and just let the other slide. Spammers are happy to exploit this.
"Greylisting" is where an SMTP server refuses messages for a certain amount of time. You set the criteria on why the message would be refused and how long the server would refuse to accept it.
It's been pretty much defeated now because so many spammers have their machines try to hammer the message through until it does go through.
I'm using greylisting right now and the only advantage is that many times a spammer will end up on an RBL during the 15 minutes that I'm refusing his messages.
Remember, the spammers have, effectively, unlimted bandwidth and unlimited processing power at their disposal.