Well those are great if you are running Kubuntu 8.04 or Fedora 9, but many people want to run the latest version of those distros and as such there are no binaries for them there or in the repositories. So this suggestion is pretty much worthless.
Nvidia is the market leader when it comes to graphics, physics and GPGPU hardware. Intel might not need them in the niche market of netbooks, but they do need them and their patents when it comes to the actual desktop and laptop computers out there.
Intel would just go back to work and develop things that wouldn't violate NVIDIA's patent and then NVIDIA would be left in the cold cause the biggest licensor of their technology dropped their asses.
Similarly, Intel needs AMD if they expect to be able to continue using x64 technology. Otherwise they are going to need a lot of luck trying to push Itanium as a replacement desktop product.
Actually AMD is more reliant on Intel in this case. Without a license to x86 from Intel, AMD couldn't have developed x64 and if lost they would then subsequently lose their right to license out the technology.
Intel just seems to be making enemies out of everyone these days. First AMD and now Nvidia. If they aren't careful, they could very well end up isolating themselves.
Intel doesn't need either AMD or NVIDIA. You look at most notebooks today and they will have all integrated Intel stuff without anything from either of those either companies. So I doubt they are going to be hurting much. In fact, NVIDIA needs Intel far more than the other way around. AMD isn't going to use NVIDIA chipsets or graphics cards and if Intel drops them, then NVIDIA is pretty much lost from the loop.
A company insists on making old fashion but better keyboards and still living in this age which you CAN'T buy a keyboard which wasn't produced in some China sweatshop is a interesting one.
It might be if this wasn't one of a dozen or more dupes that are just slashvertisments for the same company over and over.
as someone else said in this thread, the levels and art assets have always been non-free.
I know, I was just saying that your solution isn't going to give them anything to play not that I think they should be giving away their assets for free. I wasn't going along with the GP's whining over having to pay the game as that is just silly.
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech
Western governments have routinely subverted the teachings of western political philosophy, but that has little bearing on what I said.
however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
Actually you can probably find more rulings against "free speech" than you can "anonymous expression".
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Anonymous expression has always been a cornerstone of free speech/expression. The only way you can say it's not is to ignore the centuries of western commentary on exactly this subject.
If you actually went to the FCC with such a complaint you'd be laughed at for confusing the disconnection of ISP service (which you have no right to have) with the jamming of telephones, radios, etc which is actually illegal.
Except the fact that the ISP would point out the clause in your contract that you agreed to that says that they can terminate your service for TOS violations.
The very quote you mentioned clearly states he uses exploits for profit.
No it doesn't. He said he's not going to go through the trouble of finding and bugs and writing an exploit and then giving it away to Apple for free when they pay others money to do the exact same thing.
The GP is completely right- this guy is a black hat.
Sorry, the GP is wrong unless you have some information of him actually using any exploits for malicious use which I doubt you have.
No, he's just not an idiot. BTW Apple pays people to report verifiable bugs to them. Does that make all those people black hats too? You never actually mentioned why he should do free work for Apple when they pay others to do the same thing.
You talked earlier about the value of vulnerabilities. Was it a surprise that he (Nils) basically gave up three "high-value" bugs for $5,000 each?
It's clear he's incredibly talented. I was shocked when I saw someone sign up to go after IE 8. You can get paid a lot more than $5,000 for one of those bugs. I've talked to a lot of smart, knowledgeable people and no one knows exactly how he did it. He could easily get $50,000 for that vulnerability. I'd say $50,000 is a low-end price point.
For the amount of time he spent to do what he did on IE and Firefox, he could have found and exploited five or 10 Safari bugs. With the way they're paying $5,000 for every verifiable bug, he could have spent that same time and resources and make $25,000 or $30,000 easily just by going after Safari on Mac.
It's really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don't do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don't have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you'd find in Windows.
It's more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn't have anti-exploit stuff built into it.
With my Safari exploit, I put the code into a process and I know exactly where it's going to be. There's no randomization. I know when I jump there, the code is there and I can execute it there. On Windows, the code might show up but I don't know where it is. Even if I get to the code, it's not executable. Those are two hurdles that Macs don't have.
It's clear that all three browsers (Safari, IE and Firefox) have bugs. Code execution holes everywhere. But that's only half the equation. The other half is exploiting it. There's almost no hurdle to jump through on Mac OS X.
Looks like all that supposed security you hear about in Mac OS X is really just a huge joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, no one every uses VPN connections for anything other than spam, kiddie porn trading and sending death threats. Fuck off you stupid troll.
Yep, and Tor is only for child pornographers trying to circumvent being caught.
Did I first post?!?!?!? I'm not sure!!!
Which of the major distros don't carry KDE 3.5 any more??
Kubuntu 8.10 and higher and Fedora 10.
Looking at http://www.kde.org/download/#v3.5 there appear to be binary packages for Fedora, Kubuntu, Mandriva, openSUSE
Well those are great if you are running Kubuntu 8.04 or Fedora 9, but many people want to run the latest version of those distros and as such there are no binaries for them there or in the repositories. So this suggestion is pretty much worthless.
Nvidia is the market leader when it comes to graphics, physics and GPGPU hardware. Intel might not need them in the niche market of netbooks, but they do need them and their patents when it comes to the actual desktop and laptop computers out there.
Intel would just go back to work and develop things that wouldn't violate NVIDIA's patent and then NVIDIA would be left in the cold cause the biggest licensor of their technology dropped their asses.
Similarly, Intel needs AMD if they expect to be able to continue using x64 technology. Otherwise they are going to need a lot of luck trying to push Itanium as a replacement desktop product.
Actually AMD is more reliant on Intel in this case. Without a license to x86 from Intel, AMD couldn't have developed x64 and if lost they would then subsequently lose their right to license out the technology.
Intel just seems to be making enemies out of everyone these days. First AMD and now Nvidia. If they aren't careful, they could very well end up isolating themselves.
Intel doesn't need either AMD or NVIDIA. You look at most notebooks today and they will have all integrated Intel stuff without anything from either of those either companies. So I doubt they are going to be hurting much. In fact, NVIDIA needs Intel far more than the other way around. AMD isn't going to use NVIDIA chipsets or graphics cards and if Intel drops them, then NVIDIA is pretty much lost from the loop.
A company insists on making old fashion but better keyboards and still living in this age which you CAN'T buy a keyboard which wasn't produced in some China sweatshop is a interesting one.
It might be if this wasn't one of a dozen or more dupes that are just slashvertisments for the same company over and over.
Why would you be listening to music and going on to MSN on a webserver? Or did you not even read the post and the whoosh went straight over your head?
Yeah, but this slashvertisement for Unicomp needs to be posted routinely, apparently.
Clearly IBM is in a conspiracy with the people attempting to sniff your keystrokes!!! http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/26/1947246
It's "1337" not "l33t", noobtard.
with your kid
Doesn't seem like a likely future for most Slashdotters.
Why was this modded troll? Did someone miss that whooshing sound in their ears?
Yeah because employees who willingly waste a company's time and money are definitely real keepers!
as someone else said in this thread, the levels and art assets have always been non-free.
I know, I was just saying that your solution isn't going to give them anything to play not that I think they should be giving away their assets for free. I wasn't going along with the GP's whining over having to pay the game as that is just silly.
Yeah and have fun playing an engine without any levels or any other assets.
I must disagree:
You disagree that western political philosophy has anonymous speech as a central part of free speech/expression? Then you'd be disagreeing with reality. One only has to look at the Federalist papers to show you wrong.
western governments have historically ruled against the protection of anonymous speech
Western governments have routinely subverted the teachings of western political philosophy, but that has little bearing on what I said.
however, free speech has traditionally been protected.
Actually you can probably find more rulings against "free speech" than you can "anonymous expression".
Saying something anonymously is not part of that definition.
Anonymous expression has always been a cornerstone of free speech/expression. The only way you can say it's not is to ignore the centuries of western commentary on exactly this subject.
If you actually went to the FCC with such a complaint you'd be laughed at for confusing the disconnection of ISP service (which you have no right to have) with the jamming of telephones, radios, etc which is actually illegal.
That sound you are hearing in your ears is the whooshing of you missing the joke...
Except the fact that the ISP would point out the clause in your contract that you agreed to that says that they can terminate your service for TOS violations.
Have you EVER heard of an end user calling Microsoft for support?
Yep, many times. In fact they have a pretty big support group at Microsoft.
I'm sure people do, but I've never heard of such a thing.
Because your anecdotes clearly extrapolate to the entire world, right?
Emphasis mine.
There is no emphasis...
The very quote you mentioned clearly states he uses exploits for profit.
No it doesn't. He said he's not going to go through the trouble of finding and bugs and writing an exploit and then giving it away to Apple for free when they pay others money to do the exact same thing.
The GP is completely right- this guy is a black hat.
Sorry, the GP is wrong unless you have some information of him actually using any exploits for malicious use which I doubt you have.
You talked earlier about the value of vulnerabilities. Was it a surprise that he (Nils) basically gave up three "high-value" bugs for $5,000 each?
It's clear he's incredibly talented. I was shocked when I saw someone sign up to go after IE 8. You can get paid a lot more than $5,000 for one of those bugs. I've talked to a lot of smart, knowledgeable people and no one knows exactly how he did it. He could easily get $50,000 for that vulnerability. I'd say $50,000 is a low-end price point.
For the amount of time he spent to do what he did on IE and Firefox, he could have found and exploited five or 10 Safari bugs. With the way they're paying $5,000 for every verifiable bug, he could have spent that same time and resources and make $25,000 or $30,000 easily just by going after Safari on Mac.
Why Safari? Why didn't you go after IE or Safari?
It's really simple. Safari on the Mac is easier to exploit. The things that Windows do to make it harder (for an exploit to work), Macs don't do. Hacking into Macs is so much easier. You don't have to jump through hoops and deal with all the anti-exploit mitigations you'd find in Windows.
It's more about the operating system than the (target) program. Firefox on Mac is pretty easy too. The underlying OS doesn't have anti-exploit stuff built into it.
With my Safari exploit, I put the code into a process and I know exactly where it's going to be. There's no randomization. I know when I jump there, the code is there and I can execute it there. On Windows, the code might show up but I don't know where it is. Even if I get to the code, it's not executable. Those are two hurdles that Macs don't have.
It's clear that all three browsers (Safari, IE and Firefox) have bugs. Code execution holes everywhere. But that's only half the equation. The other half is exploiting it. There's almost no hurdle to jump through on Mac OS X.
Looks like all that supposed security you hear about in Mac OS X is really just a huge joke.