I think you have a right to point a gun at them. Whether you have the right to pull the trigger depends on their reaction (if they have a lethal weapon of their own, then maybe you shouldn't wait for a reaction). If your gun causes them to run away and you still shoot them, I say that makes you a murderer.
I'm not from the US, so I'm curious. You think the right to bear arms is the equivalent to the right to gun somebody down because they tresspass on your property?
I think killing somebody is a little extreme as a punishment for a bit of burglary.
That's my biggest complaint about OS X. The appearence is just not customisable enough and the options to customise it are not where you'd expect them (system prefs IMHO)
If he'd actually *bought* OS X off the shelf at his local software store instead of having it supplied with his iBook, it would have included the dev tools with an equally easy installation process. OS X plus devtools comes in at about $100 which is expensive for a Linux distro, but compares well with Win2K + Visual C++.
Also, it's probably more acceptable to have a complex install procedure for products aimed at somebody who will be developing software than for an average home user.
I see the problem with the "Powerbook G4" decal transferring from the screen to the case. I also have the rubber foot problem.
The biggest issues I have are the fact that it is too easy to touch the mousepad while you're typing which leads to the caret moving to a random spot (I have the trackpad click feature switched on) and the case flexes if you pick it up in one hand. This isn't a problem unless there is a CD in the drive in which case you can hear it fouling the case.
Re:Cutting off port 80?
on
Code Redux
·
· Score: 1
My local cable provider technically bans any type of server, the reason being a) the bandwidth is asymmetrical b) they want you to buy a more expensive business contract to run servers c) they can give people NATted addresses. However, they don't appear to monitor traffic and provided you don't abuse the system they don't care.
I can't speak for bind, but there are no known security exploits specific to current or recent releases of sendmail. By "recent", I mean in the last three to four years.
Actually, the BBC article on the subject a couple of days ago stated that there was every possibility that Deep Fritz *is* a weaker player than Deep Blue and it's probable that Kramnik is a stronger player than Kasparov (he beat Kasparov after all).
I think I read somewhere (i.e a proper scientific study) that women were better adapted to doing lots of things at once while men were better adapted to concentrating on one thing at a time. The theory being that men were adapted to hunting (a single task requiring complete concentration), while women were adapted to doing all the other jobs around the cave/hut (lots of tasks perhaps not requiring the same level of concentration).
I don't believe that it is possible to multi-task without some loss of efficiency. I doubt if anybody could interrupt the debugging process to, say , answer the phone and then go back to it exactly where they left off without spending a few minutes remembering where they were, but I am quite prepared to believe that women spend less time in the "context switch" than men.
The trouble is people will only write the software that they find interesting. There will be no new payroll software, no stock control systems, no air traffic control software, no emergency services command and control software.
Actually, that's not the case, the company/government/police - who needs the s/w will pay somebody to write it and naturally since they paid for it to be written they will sell it to other companies/governments/emergency services (and why shouldn't they). Hey, a new proprietary software industry.
I think my point is that there is a use for both free and proprietary software and I don't think you should - or could - make either of them go away.
Let's face it, if you can't put a fence around it, or chain it, or lock it up in some manner, it does not belong to you. It does not matter if it's music, writings, software, ideas, inventions, drawings or what have you. Once you release it, it becomes like the air that we breathe: it belongs to nobody and to everybody.
Intellectual property can be fenced/locked up. It's called "copyright". Let's say I'm a professional musician. You copy my music without paying for it so I persecute you like a common thief. That's because you are a common thief. Intellectual property only has value by virtue of the fact that other people want it but can't get it without paying for it, so by copying my music you are depriving me of the one thing I produce that has any value.
Let's say there is no intellectual property. This means that music has no value, which in turn means that there is no music industry, which means there is no music available to people who have no musical talent. Sounds kind of dull to me.
If all software was free, then the ability to write computer programs has no value which means that nobody would do it, or at least people would only do it as a hobby. The quality and variety of software would suffer. Who wants to write a payroll package? Who wants to spend their time QA'ing software?
There's been an IIS patch available for several months which blocks the hole exploited by CodeRed. You can't sue M$ for negligence but you might be able to sue any of the web server owners who haven't applied the patch.
Actually, there has been a beneficial effect with CodeRed (in the UK at least). I have seen several reports on British network news programmes that talk about "security flaws in M$ software", not "security flaws in the Internet". It's quite a step forward for the media here not to treat M$ software and Internet / PC software as being effectively synonymous. There is a faint but real message that the problem is Microsoft.
It has to run as root, at least briefly, so it can open port 80
All this theoretical stuff is great. OSS is less secure because it is easier to write tools to compromise its security. This is true. However, the reality of the situation is that there is a ton of hacks for IIS out there and other popular proprietary software. So it might be harder to write exploits for this stuff, but it's not impossible and somebody is putting the necessary effort in. The worst thing is: all you can do about it is wait for M$ or Lotus or whoever to be bothered to put out a patch.
Did you actually read the article? Security through obscurity does have uses. Firstly, it increases the amount of effort required to make an attack. Secondly it increases the probability of an attack being discovered. The example given was to put you secure web server on a different port from port 80, which means that an attacker has to scan lots of ports on the machine to find it instead of just checking port 80.
The article was not advocating just using security by obscurity although any password based authentication system can be considered to be security by (a lot of) obscurity
Reading is further away from London than Watford, and Manningtree is right out in the sticks. The train journey involves three different transport companies and qualifies as going across London, which is enough to refute the point about having to buy three tickets.
I have also come across the bizarre problem of buying a rail ticket from Reading to Heathrow (not possible), but you can buy a rail ticket from Reading to the Heathrow underground station (the journey takes three hours).
Since nearly everybody runs Microsoft software, it *is* more or less a universal threat. It would be great if the journalists could put in the line "but Mac and *nix users are not affected." in each of these reports, but all they know about computers is what they see on their own desktops each day, which is probably a Windows box.
The security of the privileged TCP ports under Unix is crazy. OK, you don't want just anybody to be able to open port 25 on a Unix box, but to restrict it to the root account (i.e. the one account which if compromised can cause maximum damage) is just brain dead. It should be possible for root to reassign ownership of TCP ports to other users (just like with ordinary files). In fact, if it was up to me, it would be impossible for a root owned process to open any TCP port (privileged or otherwise).
It's very common for vandals to subvert poorly secured computers for distributed DoS attacks. On that basis, everybody who wishes to attach a computer to the Internet has a duty of care to the rest of the Internet community to keep his/her computer up to a reasonable level of security.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe that in the UK it is technically breach of copyright to make *any* copies of a CD. The music companies take a "let's be reasonable" approach and turn a blind eye to making tape copies of CDs for (say) playing in your car etc. However, making copes for your friends is definitely illegal, but almost impossible to police because just about everybody does it.
Here's how I did it. First I learned C. Actually, I did that before C++ was invented. Then I learned about object oriented programming through a variety of means. Note that you can apply object oriented techniques to virtually any computer language and you'll probably end up with a better program than if you don't.
Finally, I learned C++. But this was not an instantaneous thing. Basically, I found a book on programming with Borland C++ and read the thing from start to finish (doing the exercises as I went along). I wasn't too bothered about understanding everything - C++ is a big and complicated language - I just made sure I had a good overview of what was possible. Then I started using bits of C++ in my coding. I started with the obviously useful bit - classes. Every now and then I'd come across a problem that would make me think "I remember reading something about feature X in C++ that would help me here." Then I'd go back to the book (or read the relevant reference docs) to find out how to do it. I'd say that my coding style has evolved from C to C++ over a period of time (about 5 years). You can look at some of my early C++ code and say it probably isn't optimal C++, but it would be good C (IMHO:-))with some C++ features.
Programming sockets and X should be regarded as separate exercises. Get a good grounding in C or C++ and then tackle sockets. The Unix Network Programming book by Richard Stevens is a good way to learn about sockets. His examples are given in C, but are easily translatable to any other language (with access to the Berkeley Socket API) by a programmer proficient in that language (and with some knowledge of C).
Nothing on the web is free. All web content costs something to provide e.g. you need servers, bandwidth, people to run the stuff etc. So to provide web content indefinitely, you must have a source of income.
Some sites take advertising (e.g. Slashdot). When you buy the advertiser's product, a small percentage of the money you hand over goes to the web site they advertise on. Some sites charge for their content directly. Some sites are one big advertisement (most corporate web sites). Some sites are government funded e.g. (in the UK) most University web sites which means that a small percentage of my taxes funds web sites.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you have a right to point a gun at them. Whether you have the right to pull the trigger depends on their reaction (if they have a lethal weapon of their own, then maybe you shouldn't wait for a reaction). If your gun causes them to run away and you still shoot them, I say that makes you a murderer.
I'm not from the US, so I'm curious. You think the right to bear arms is the equivalent to the right to gun somebody down because they tresspass on your property?
I think killing somebody is a little extreme as a punishment for a bit of burglary.
Foot cannot pollute
You shit, piss and breathe out I presume? All forms of transport pollute in some way. It's just that some pollution is easier to deal with.
Anyway I have a Titanium Powerbook. It was worth the money just to see my coworkers looking jealously and salivating uncontrollably.
That's my biggest complaint about OS X. The appearence is just not customisable enough and the options to customise it are not where you'd expect them (system prefs IMHO)
If he'd actually *bought* OS X off the shelf at his local software store instead of having it supplied with his iBook, it would have included the dev tools with an equally easy installation process. OS X plus devtools comes in at about $100 which is expensive for a Linux distro, but compares well with Win2K + Visual C++.
Also, it's probably more acceptable to have a complex install procedure for products aimed at somebody who will be developing software than for an average home user.
I see the problem with the "Powerbook G4" decal transferring from the screen to the case. I also have the rubber foot problem.
The biggest issues I have are the fact that it is too easy to touch the mousepad while you're typing which leads to the caret moving to a random spot (I have the trackpad click feature switched on) and the case flexes if you pick it up in one hand. This isn't a problem unless there is a CD in the drive in which case you can hear it fouling the case.
My local cable provider technically bans any type of server, the reason being a) the bandwidth is asymmetrical b) they want you to buy a more expensive business contract to run servers c) they can give people NATted addresses. However, they don't appear to monitor traffic and provided you don't abuse the system they don't care.
I can't speak for bind, but there are no known security exploits specific to current or recent releases of sendmail. By "recent", I mean in the last three to four years.
Will they turn the computer off while he is resting? Or will it be allowed to continue to do exhaustive game tree searches during that time?
It was "Through the Looking Glass"
Actually, the BBC article on the subject a couple of days ago stated that there was every possibility that Deep Fritz *is* a weaker player than Deep Blue and it's probable that Kramnik is a stronger player than Kasparov (he beat Kasparov after all).
I think I read somewhere (i.e a proper scientific study) that women were better adapted to doing lots of things at once while men were better adapted to concentrating on one thing at a time. The theory being that men were adapted to hunting (a single task requiring complete concentration), while women were adapted to doing all the other jobs around the cave/hut (lots of tasks perhaps not requiring the same level of concentration).
I don't believe that it is possible to multi-task without some loss of efficiency. I doubt if anybody could interrupt the debugging process to, say , answer the phone and then go back to it exactly where they left off without spending a few minutes remembering where they were, but I am quite prepared to believe that women spend less time in the "context switch" than men.
The trouble is people will only write the software that they find interesting. There will be no new payroll software, no stock control systems, no air traffic control software, no emergency services command and control software.
Actually, that's not the case, the company/government/police - who needs the s/w will pay somebody to write it and naturally since they paid for it to be written they will sell it to other companies/governments/emergency services (and why shouldn't they). Hey, a new proprietary software industry.
I think my point is that there is a use for both free and proprietary software and I don't think you should - or could - make either of them go away.
Let's face it, if you can't put a fence around it, or chain it, or lock it up in some manner, it does not belong to you. It does not matter if it's music, writings, software, ideas, inventions, drawings or what have you. Once you release it, it becomes like the air that we breathe: it belongs to nobody and to everybody.
Intellectual property can be fenced/locked up. It's called "copyright". Let's say I'm a professional musician. You copy my music without paying for it so I persecute you like a common thief. That's because you are a common thief. Intellectual property only has value by virtue of the fact that other people want it but can't get it without paying for it, so by copying my music you are depriving me of the one thing I produce that has any value.
Let's say there is no intellectual property. This means that music has no value, which in turn means that there is no music industry, which means there is no music available to people who have no musical talent. Sounds kind of dull to me.
If all software was free, then the ability to write computer programs has no value which means that nobody would do it, or at least people would only do it as a hobby. The quality and variety of software would suffer. Who wants to write a payroll package? Who wants to spend their time QA'ing software?
There's been an IIS patch available for several months which blocks the hole exploited by CodeRed. You can't sue M$ for negligence but you might be able to sue any of the web server owners who haven't applied the patch.
Actually, there has been a beneficial effect with CodeRed (in the UK at least). I have seen several reports on British network news programmes that talk about "security flaws in M$ software", not "security flaws in the Internet". It's quite a step forward for the media here not to treat M$ software and Internet / PC software as being effectively synonymous. There is a faint but real message that the problem is Microsoft.
Not to my knowledge. It is several years since RD8 went out in the UK. I'd have thought if another series was going to be made, it'd be out now.
Why are you running Apache as root?
It has to run as root, at least briefly, so it can open port 80
All this theoretical stuff is great. OSS is less secure because it is easier to write tools to compromise its security. This is true. However, the reality of the situation is that there is a ton of hacks for IIS out there and other popular proprietary software. So it might be harder to write exploits for this stuff, but it's not impossible and somebody is putting the necessary effort in. The worst thing is: all you can do about it is wait for M$ or Lotus or whoever to be bothered to put out a patch.
Did you actually read the article? Security through obscurity does have uses. Firstly, it increases the amount of effort required to make an attack. Secondly it increases the probability of an attack being discovered. The example given was to put you secure web server on a different port from port 80, which means that an attacker has to scan lots of ports on the machine to find it instead of just checking port 80.
The article was not advocating just using security by obscurity although any password based authentication system can be considered to be security by (a lot of) obscurity
Reading is further away from London than Watford, and Manningtree is right out in the sticks. The train journey involves three different transport companies and qualifies as going across London, which is enough to refute the point about having to buy three tickets.
I have also come across the bizarre problem of buying a rail ticket from Reading to Heathrow (not possible), but you can buy a rail ticket from Reading to the Heathrow underground station (the journey takes three hours).
Since nearly everybody runs Microsoft software, it *is* more or less a universal threat. It would be great if the journalists could put in the line "but Mac and *nix users are not affected." in each of these reports, but all they know about computers is what they see on their own desktops each day, which is probably a Windows box.
The security of the privileged TCP ports under Unix is crazy. OK, you don't want just anybody to be able to open port 25 on a Unix box, but to restrict it to the root account (i.e. the one account which if compromised can cause maximum damage) is just brain dead. It should be possible for root to reassign ownership of TCP ports to other users (just like with ordinary files). In fact, if it was up to me, it would be impossible for a root owned process to open any TCP port (privileged or otherwise).
It's very common for vandals to subvert poorly secured computers for distributed DoS attacks. On that basis, everybody who wishes to attach a computer to the Internet has a duty of care to the rest of the Internet community to keep his/her computer up to a reasonable level of security.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I believe that in the UK it is technically breach of copyright to make *any* copies of a CD. The music companies take a "let's be reasonable" approach and turn a blind eye to making tape copies of CDs for (say) playing in your car etc. However, making copes for your friends is definitely illegal, but almost impossible to police because just about everybody does it.
Here's how I did it. First I learned C. Actually, I did that before C++ was invented. Then I learned about object oriented programming through a variety of means. Note that you can apply object oriented techniques to virtually any computer language and you'll probably end up with a better program than if you don't.
:-))with some C++ features.
Finally, I learned C++. But this was not an instantaneous thing. Basically, I found a book on programming with Borland C++ and read the thing from start to finish (doing the exercises as I went along). I wasn't too bothered about understanding everything - C++ is a big and complicated language - I just made sure I had a good overview of what was possible. Then I started using bits of C++ in my coding. I started with the obviously useful bit - classes. Every now and then I'd come across a problem that would make me think "I remember reading something about feature X in C++ that would help me here." Then I'd go back to the book (or read the relevant reference docs) to find out how to do it. I'd say that my coding style has evolved from C to C++ over a period of time (about 5 years). You can look at some of my early C++ code and say it probably isn't optimal C++, but it would be good C (IMHO
Programming sockets and X should be regarded as separate exercises. Get a good grounding in C or C++ and then tackle sockets. The Unix Network Programming book by Richard Stevens is a good way to learn about sockets. His examples are given in C, but are easily translatable to any other language (with access to the Berkeley Socket API) by a programmer proficient in that language (and with some knowledge of C).
Nothing on the web is free. All web content costs something to provide e.g. you need servers, bandwidth, people to run the stuff etc. So to provide web content indefinitely, you must have a source of income. Some sites take advertising (e.g. Slashdot). When you buy the advertiser's product, a small percentage of the money you hand over goes to the web site they advertise on. Some sites charge for their content directly. Some sites are one big advertisement (most corporate web sites). Some sites are government funded e.g. (in the UK) most University web sites which means that a small percentage of my taxes funds web sites.