Oh, I don't know, maybe any site that's been hacked?
Most of the archives keeping a list of legitimate pages that have been hacked have given up, the amount of hacked pages is just too high to keep on top of.
I mean, all you have to do is look at the numbers for Nimda and you can see just how many sites are just waiting for malicious data to be placed on them.
>Unless I go around to letmehackyourwindozebox.com am I really at risk?
Nope, you're at risk no matter where you go, unless of course you are able to personally vouch for the security of the site at hand (which most of us aren't).
Even slashdot has been hacked, twice, so it isn't really all that impossible to assume a _lot_ of sites you have already visited have been hacked at one point or another.
>Of course being a total anti-Microsoft comment, this little tidbit [pivx.com] was conveniently left out.
(Score -1, Offtopic)
We aren't talking about Netscape now, are we?
Read the title? See the words AOL, Netscape, Gecko, or Mozilla there?
No?
Well geez, just maybe you should wait for the right discussion for your comment. What does the quality of netscape have to do with IE? It isn't integrated with the Operating System. You have a choice with Netscape, you can always not install it. But if you have to use windows (like a lot of people) you have to have the windows OS installed. Which means, according to Microsoft themselves, you have to run internet explorer. And that's the long and short of it. End of story. Nothing to see here, move along FUDmaster.
>The fact of the matter is Windows is the most common target of hackers. They occasionall find stuff, it gets fixed.
No, the fact of the matter is that the oldest security hole still present in internet explorer is over...
2 years and 2 months old.
Look, if they ACTUALLY fixed their OS (and by OS I mean browser, which MS says is the OS) we wouldn't care. But, you see, since they don't care to fix their OS (and if you can't fix it in 2 years then you are one very pathetic uncaring company) then we will care to explain to others that they don't care.
Get it?
You can apply every security patch in the world, but IE is still lets any site read:
- Any and all of your files
- Run any code they please
- Upload files of their choosing
- Modify files they want to
- Delete files they want to
- Delete your BIOS so you can't boot up your computer
- Make your computer dial 911 constantly, tying up emergency systems
- Install viruses on your computer
- Make your computer do DDOS attacks
- Make your computer email bomb threats to the president under your name
All without warning you. And any amount of patching won't affect it.
Is that not serious enough? Do they need to set your computer on fire to make it serious enough? Does your computer have to reach out and throttle you before you see how serious it is?
>and a lot of it could be prevented by using a good proxy server.
Just like a lot of windows viruses are prevented by using an Anti-Virus, and a lot of spyware is prevented by using AdAware, and so on and so on. So, lets see, to keep your windows (even at home) in shape, you'll need:
- $40 Anti-Virus software
- $15 for AdAware plus
- $690 (per user) for a professional firewall/proxy server.
Why is it that a company can use such a poor security model and people will still think they should make up for it buy buying all sorts of band-aids to the real problem of a late implementation of a security model by Microsoft?
Saying that basic things like a web browser should require purchasing/acquiring a third party software fix is like saying that to secure Linux you should run a BSD firewall.
>Is an aluminum/copper hybrid worse than aluminum alone?
I'm not totally understanding of this, but I do know that (to a certain point) from what I can remember from physics this is less efficient. Not to mention that I only started thinking about this when a BSc in Mech. Eng. said everytime you bond two materials together you lose heat transfer efficiency (this was while I showed him one of those Cu+Al heatsinks) so he thought they were a silly design.
But I'm not the Uni. grad. here, so maybe I'm incorrect.
How interesting, considering my 2x HP drive now turns out coasters 75% of the time, but my 40x LG drive hasn't turned out a coaster yet, even on $0.26/CAN media. The store told me not to burn them at anything above 8x, but they work without a hitch (even for audio in an older car CD player).
My local Future Shop sells 32x Verbatim media, and I'm sure with only a small amount of effort I can buy 40x media.
The nice thing about faster drives is that they have to be built better than slower drives to handle working at the higher speeds. My 2x burner has crapped out, but I expect my 40x drive to last a long time if I only used it at 16x.
Now, IMGO, you're lying, or just not tuned into the CDR market. Which is it?
That's because Plextor offcially stopped developing them at that point.
I wouldn't look to Plextor for any more CD-R stuff, they've decided to go cheap and consumer level rather than professional (strongly indicated by their lack of SCSI development).
Go to Yamaha instead. They still develop SCSI drives.
Well, there's your problem. At the time of the processor you speak of, the Thermaltake Orb series of CPU fans were notorious for being a POS all around.
A regular, AMD approved, low cost fan would have done better.
Whoever came up with bonding copper to aluminum to improve the heat flow needs to take a basic physics lesson.
>This is a linear regulator and a good chuck of your power budget will be spent heating this part up.
Yeah, I know that, but I also know these things are virtually indestructible and are really easy to build. Anyone who can build a switching power supply wouldn't be asking how to change 12V to 5V on slashdot, and I wouldn't reccomend building a switching power supply as a "starter" electronics project.
>The drop-out voltage for this part is always above 1.0V and can even reach 2.5V in some cases. (See the PDF).
From my experience the parts don't actually completely stop supplying voltage. They just stop regulating, and if that means a 1 volt increase to your stuff (its a battery, so there's not going to be a lot of noise on the line), I doubt you need to worry about it.:-) And if you do, stop buying such junk!
Not to mention that a Lead-Acid car/marine battery is fatally discharged at about 12.8 Volts.
>...when the machine that connects to these arbitrary p2p clients ends up inside the IWT network?
Simple. Issue them a warning under the DMCA, and tell them that due to violating their TOS (ie: No violating the law using their internet service) that their service will be terminated immediately.
If they either sue, or get the law the RIAA to court on the "evidence", since entrapment is a legal issue. I don't think it applies to private entities anyways.
I somehow doubt they'll do that, and they are a private entity, so no.
This will (very easily, somewhat efficiently, and with with great accuracy) convert to all those voltages except 20V. A DC-DC step-up convertor (I don't know a part number off the top of my head, sorry) will do that for you.
Using that IC is a _very_ easy way to get started in an electronics hobby. Try it...:-)
It is completely legal to copy a DVD. You just need media that doesn't have the CSS ring zeroed out.
As long as you copy the encryption along with the data, there is no law broken. You have in no way bypassed the encryption, it is still there.
Its unbelieveable that a man who thinks he knows so much about copyright law can be beaten by a lowly slashdot reader. Some "digital revolution" leader he is.
He should pick up a DVD burner sometime and learn about the technology he is trying to destroy.
>what if djb dies and a security problem with qmail is discovered? Would there be any way to fix it?
Well, you have two choices.
1) Release a patch, and make a new homepage for your autopatched qmail distro. 2) Dead people can't sue. Go ahead and just patch the code and call it a new version. Change the name if you like. Of course, I suppose someone else could sue on his behalf, but I don't know copyright law that well.
>The idea that tech is automatically un-eco is false, in my opinion. Perhaps you agree.
I do, but where I disagree (maybe not with you, but with them) is that the ideas of many ecologists are:
A) Workable B) Actually good for the environment
A surprising amount of people who I've talked to that consider themselves ecologists would have everyone covering the city with solar collectors, while at the same time they complain about the black ashphalt streets increasing the city temperature and increasing the damage smog does to peoples' lungs. Solar collectors are black, and the amount required to power a house (without modifying the equipment in the house) would really require lining the property with black solar tiles. No net benefit, IMHO.
Then they often suggest wind collectors, but there's just not the room for them in the average city, and you can't go around using up the farmland you eat from and expect not to starve.
Then I suggest Nuclear Power (safe, reliable, and clean when used properly) and they have a meltdown.
Why?
Beats me.
But I do agree, technology _can_ and _has_ solved many of the problems it has created. I don't doubt that it will solve the current temperature dips and rises we're experiencing (I have a really hard time with the "global warming" concept -- its been abused by eco-corporations far too often).
>Do I think it's a possible society... would it work?
I don't think it would work. Silicon valley eats power for breakfast and the overwhelming majority of solutions presented by self-titled ecologists assume everyone is willing to live in tents and "compute" with a green-screen non-backlit gameboy level of computer.
It ain't for me, and probably isn't for most of Northern California, no matter how much people there bluff their way into appearing to be super-ecologists.
>The inability to create derivative works makes qmail unfree.
No, the ability to combine untarring and patching into a one liner shell script is was makes it free and a completely derivative work, while maintaining what the author wants with his license: The ability to disclaim himself from foreign changes to the source code.
Slashdot Mirror
>Here's a question: define "malicious site".
Oh, I don't know, maybe any site that's been hacked?
Most of the archives keeping a list of legitimate pages that have been hacked have given up, the amount of hacked pages is just too high to keep on top of.
I mean, all you have to do is look at the numbers for Nimda and you can see just how many sites are just waiting for malicious data to be placed on them.
>Unless I go around to letmehackyourwindozebox.com am I really at risk?
Nope, you're at risk no matter where you go, unless of course you are able to personally vouch for the security of the site at hand (which most of us aren't).
Even slashdot has been hacked, twice, so it isn't really all that impossible to assume a _lot_ of sites you have already visited have been hacked at one point or another.
>Of course being a total anti-Microsoft comment, this little tidbit [pivx.com] was conveniently left out.
(Score -1, Offtopic)
We aren't talking about Netscape now, are we?
Read the title? See the words AOL, Netscape, Gecko, or Mozilla there?
No?
Well geez, just maybe you should wait for the right discussion for your comment. What does the quality of netscape have to do with IE? It isn't integrated with the Operating System. You have a choice with Netscape, you can always not install it. But if you have to use windows (like a lot of people) you have to have the windows OS installed. Which means, according to Microsoft themselves, you have to run internet explorer. And that's the long and short of it. End of story. Nothing to see here, move along FUDmaster.
Again, sheesh.
>The fact of the matter is Windows is the most common target of hackers. They occasionall find stuff, it gets fixed.
No, the fact of the matter is that the oldest security hole still present in internet explorer is over...
2 years and 2 months old.
Look, if they ACTUALLY fixed their OS (and by OS I mean browser, which MS says is the OS) we wouldn't care. But, you see, since they don't care to fix their OS (and if you can't fix it in 2 years then you are one very pathetic uncaring company) then we will care to explain to others that they don't care.
Get it?
You can apply every security patch in the world, but IE is still lets any site read:
- Any and all of your files
- Run any code they please
- Upload files of their choosing
- Modify files they want to
- Delete files they want to
- Delete your BIOS so you can't boot up your computer
- Make your computer dial 911 constantly, tying up emergency systems
- Install viruses on your computer
- Make your computer do DDOS attacks
- Make your computer email bomb threats to the president under your name
All without warning you. And any amount of patching won't affect it.
Is that not serious enough? Do they need to set your computer on fire to make it serious enough? Does your computer have to reach out and throttle you before you see how serious it is?
Sheesh.
>and a lot of it could be prevented by using a good proxy server.
Just like a lot of windows viruses are prevented by using an Anti-Virus, and a lot of spyware is prevented by using AdAware, and so on and so on. So, lets see, to keep your windows (even at home) in shape, you'll need:
- $40 Anti-Virus software
- $15 for AdAware plus
- $690 (per user) for a professional firewall/proxy server.
Why is it that a company can use such a poor security model and people will still think they should make up for it buy buying all sorts of band-aids to the real problem of a late implementation of a security model by Microsoft?
Saying that basic things like a web browser should require purchasing/acquiring a third party software fix is like saying that to secure Linux you should run a BSD firewall.
Yup, because that so much delegitimatizes the notion of third party truth, doesn't it?
Sorta like "Smoking never killed anybody. And saying 'but its killing me' doesn't count."
Sorry, but its just a non-argument, and deserves to be ignored.
>Is an aluminum/copper hybrid worse than aluminum alone?
I'm not totally understanding of this, but I do know that (to a certain point) from what I can remember from physics this is less efficient. Not to mention that I only started thinking about this when a BSc in Mech. Eng. said everytime you bond two materials together you lose heat transfer efficiency (this was while I showed him one of those Cu+Al heatsinks) so he thought they were a silly design.
But I'm not the Uni. grad. here, so maybe I'm incorrect.
How interesting, considering my 2x HP drive now turns out coasters 75% of the time, but my 40x LG drive hasn't turned out a coaster yet, even on $0.26/CAN media. The store told me not to burn them at anything above 8x, but they work without a hitch (even for audio in an older car CD player).
My local Future Shop sells 32x Verbatim media, and I'm sure with only a small amount of effort I can buy 40x media.
The nice thing about faster drives is that they have to be built better than slower drives to handle working at the higher speeds. My 2x burner has crapped out, but I expect my 40x drive to last a long time if I only used it at 16x.
Now, IMGO, you're lying, or just not tuned into the CDR market. Which is it?
>But 12/4/32 is a two year old model.
That's because Plextor offcially stopped developing them at that point.
I wouldn't look to Plextor for any more CD-R stuff, they've decided to go cheap and consumer level rather than professional (strongly indicated by their lack of SCSI development).
Go to Yamaha instead. They still develop SCSI drives.
>If you are in business you use business TOOLS not toy crap slapped together by some pimple faced kid.
A businesses best tools are its employees. Any business forgetting about that will find itself part of the next economy bomb, I can assure you.
>Yamaha's are actually ATAPI drives with a SCSI converter.
Hooboy, that's wrong (not as in facts, but as in a way of doing something) in so many ways I'm not sure where to start.
I mean, lets see, we're taking a SCSI commandset, stuffing it into IDE, then stripping the IDE stuff off again so we just have SCSI.
Its like connecting male and female gender benders together. Pointless fun!
They don't make decent motherboards for $50. They do, however, make PCChips garbage for $50.
No 40x LG review? (I can't get at the article, so I'm going to assume what slashdot said was true).
Cheap, and reasonably reliable. Works like a champ in linux. I'd get another LG.
Yup, because taxes don't pay for anything at all. That's why they're taxes. They're synonymous with "nothing" I suppose.
>I had an Orb on the Athlon
Well, there's your problem. At the time of the processor you speak of, the Thermaltake Orb series of CPU fans were notorious for being a POS all around.
A regular, AMD approved, low cost fan would have done better.
Whoever came up with bonding copper to aluminum to improve the heat flow needs to take a basic physics lesson.
>half as fat
In today's world, this is a good thing. Sorry you missed out on the late 70's, 80's and 90's. Why not join us in 2k2?
>source available for cor rc5 loops for most processors
cor? Is that what happens when you try to remove the middle of an Apple (haha) with a corer and find it gets stuck on its way out?
>A dual 1800+ AMD MP get only HALF! 10,807,034 rc5 keys !
An English teacher only HALF you brain me good.
>Funny "Mhz myth" there showing itself I guess...
Well, sure. I mean, what do you expect from over THERE in La La land? Personally, though, I find THEIR benchmarks (whoever they are) pathetic.
>Apple now is selling even FASTER machines but with smaller caches and less fast read-write ram (it now uses DDR on newest boxes).
Ow. Is brain English less help fastly! Marge, BEER ME!
>The mac uses a 2 MB L3 cache and no amd mp dual cpu boards
The EnGliSh UseS cAps WherEver You lIke toO! ExCElLenT !
>And I am so sad to see Slashdot reduced to fanboys moddign down anything discussing tech subjects like this as "flames" all the damned time.
Mayeb ist becaues yuo cant' ues englihs properl?y
And don't even think of comparing yourself to CmdrTaco. You are at least 10x worse.
And to think we graduate people like this from high school. For shame.
>What the heck is a forth quater?
25% of a FORTH program?
>It's been 19 seconds since you hit 'reply'!
Push the freakin' button man! We have a fast replier here!
>This is a linear regulator and a good chuck of your power budget will be spent heating this part up.
:-) And if you do, stop buying such junk!
Yeah, I know that, but I also know these things are virtually indestructible and are really easy to build. Anyone who can build a switching power supply wouldn't be asking how to change 12V to 5V on slashdot, and I wouldn't reccomend building a switching power supply as a "starter" electronics project.
>The drop-out voltage for this part is always above 1.0V and can even reach 2.5V in some cases. (See the PDF).
From my experience the parts don't actually completely stop supplying voltage. They just stop regulating, and if that means a 1 volt increase to your stuff (its a battery, so there's not going to be a lot of noise on the line), I doubt you need to worry about it.
Not to mention that a Lead-Acid car/marine battery is fatally discharged at about 12.8 Volts.
>...when the machine that connects to these arbitrary p2p clients ends up inside the IWT network?
Simple. Issue them a warning under the DMCA, and tell them that due to violating their TOS (ie: No violating the law using their internet service) that their service will be terminated immediately.
If they either sue, or get the law the RIAA to court on the "evidence", since entrapment is a legal issue. I don't think it applies to private entities anyways.
I somehow doubt they'll do that, and they are a private entity, so no.
This will (very easily, somewhat efficiently, and with with great accuracy) convert to all those voltages except 20V. A DC-DC step-up convertor (I don't know a part number off the top of my head, sorry) will do that for you.
:-)
Using that IC is a _very_ easy way to get started in an electronics hobby. Try it...
It is completely legal to copy a DVD. You just need media that doesn't have the CSS ring zeroed out.
As long as you copy the encryption along with the data, there is no law broken. You have in no way bypassed the encryption, it is still there.
Its unbelieveable that a man who thinks he knows so much about copyright law can be beaten by a lowly slashdot reader. Some "digital revolution" leader he is.
He should pick up a DVD burner sometime and learn about the technology he is trying to destroy.
>what if djb dies and a security problem with qmail is discovered? Would there be any way to fix it?
Well, you have two choices.
1) Release a patch, and make a new homepage for your autopatched qmail distro.
2) Dead people can't sue. Go ahead and just patch the code and call it a new version. Change the name if you like. Of course, I suppose someone else could sue on his behalf, but I don't know copyright law that well.
>The idea that tech is automatically un-eco is false, in my opinion. Perhaps you agree.
I do, but where I disagree (maybe not with you, but with them) is that the ideas of many ecologists are:
A) Workable
B) Actually good for the environment
A surprising amount of people who I've talked to that consider themselves ecologists would have everyone covering the city with solar collectors, while at the same time they complain about the black ashphalt streets increasing the city temperature and increasing the damage smog does to peoples' lungs. Solar collectors are black, and the amount required to power a house (without modifying the equipment in the house) would really require lining the property with black solar tiles. No net benefit, IMHO.
Then they often suggest wind collectors, but there's just not the room for them in the average city, and you can't go around using up the farmland you eat from and expect not to starve.
Then I suggest Nuclear Power (safe, reliable, and clean when used properly) and they have a meltdown.
Why?
Beats me.
But I do agree, technology _can_ and _has_ solved many of the problems it has created. I don't doubt that it will solve the current temperature dips and rises we're experiencing (I have a really hard time with the "global warming" concept -- its been abused by eco-corporations far too often).
>Do I think it's a possible society... would it work?
I don't think it would work. Silicon valley eats power for breakfast and the overwhelming majority of solutions presented by self-titled ecologists assume everyone is willing to live in tents and "compute" with a green-screen non-backlit gameboy level of computer.
It ain't for me, and probably isn't for most of Northern California, no matter how much people there bluff their way into appearing to be super-ecologists.
>The inability to create derivative works makes qmail unfree.
No, the ability to combine untarring and patching into a one liner shell script is was makes it free and a completely derivative work, while maintaining what the author wants with his license: The ability to disclaim himself from foreign changes to the source code.