I've had much fun playing the excellent role-playing game Exile III from Spiderweb Software.
This is available as shareware on Linux Mac and Windows, you can play the first 20% of the game for free, only if you register can you play the rest. Registration is quick and reasonably priced.
I have a hard time imagining that they are getting really rich by this arrangement though, but perhaps some money is trickling in ? I suppose I'm not the *only* person sending them cash:-)
This is an existing problem. People need to add all mailing-lists they are on to the "white" list.
Actually, people need to in general make sure that no auto-responders respond to mailing-list messages. On a mailing-list I'm on, each time I send a message I get a dozen or more messages back, from people I've never heard of stating they're "out of office" or whatever.
Depends on your definition of "stop" spam. Personally I'd consider it a huge advantage if I could force spammers to have a valid return-adress to be able to get trough to me. I strongly suspect this would raise costs to the point where spam is no longer profitable.
A simple technical way of doing this is to have 3 lists: a "white" list of people that can always send you email. a "black" list of people who can not. And a third, "grey" list which is initially empty.
People not in any of the lists would be sent a response with a challenge. (something along the lines of "I'm not sure if you're legit or a spammer, if you're real, please send your message again including the word 'flurryfish' somewhere in the text."
People completing the challenge successfully would be added to the greylist, and would not be challenged again in the future.
This way even strangers could send you email, if they're willing to jump trough a hoop the first time. If they're not willing to jump such a hoop, well I guess for me that indicates that their message was not really that important.
Everyone already in my adress-book would ofcourse be in the whitelist and would never see the challenge at all.
The keyspace is not 2^2048, rather it's the product of all possible primes such that the product is a 2048 bit number. This is significantly less.
If you want to factor a 2 (base 10) digit number you do not need to make 100 trial divisions, infact even with the trivial method of trial division you need only to check up until 10. (or sqrt(num))
And there's methods much better than this, good enough that a 512-bit number has been factored.
2048bit is still uncrackable though. With the current best methods for factoring you need something like 10 or 11 bits extra for doubling the workload, so a 2048 bit key should be around 2^140 times harder than the 512-bit key.
All this assumes that no better way of factoring primes is found. Since there's been many improvements in this field in the past and there's no fundamental reason to think that the current version of the optimised number sieve is optimal I find it reasonable to expect that factoring will continue to improve.
It would have to improve a lot to make this project feasible though.
What this review utterly fails to mention is that the "science" part of this science fiction is utterly lacking. (warning: spoilers !)
They use Thermite to blow up swarms of nanobots. Except thermite does not explode, only burn with a very high temperature.
He confuses photovoltaic with piezoelectric in several places, this is high-school stuff...
Many of the measurements are off. One device is described as one billionth of an inch. Only problem is that this is about the size of a single atom, and thus it's inconceivable that you could construct a nanobot this small.
His concept of "evolution" is absurd, and would appear so to anyone with even a very basic understanding of evolution. Evolution has to do with the survival of the more fit organisms. "evolution" can not be used to explain that one swarm of nanobots learn to evade the thermite after watching another nearby be anihilated by it. This is called "learning" and is not the same as evolution.
The list goes on. Frankly, for me it was enough to make the entire story more annoying than enjoyable. Everything doesn't need to be 100% realistic, but it's too stupid when a person writing about science doesn't even know high-school stuff like what a the photovoltaic effect is.
Depends on what you use Linux for. I've set up a packet-filtering router for a 3Mbps wireless link using a 386 computer and 8MB or RAM. The entire thing boots from a floppy, and runs everything from a ramdisk.
Works fine. The hardware is more than adequate for shuffling a few Mbps from one nic to another while inspecting some ip-headers.
Er, well AFAICT, you can't get hardware 3d acceleration on Linux without at least configuring it a little bit,
Nonsense. You must be using Debian, or some other distro from the stoneage. When installing Mandrake (and presumably RedHat and SuSE) you are presented with a list of X-servers compatible to your card (the card is autodetected) and simply allowed to pick which option you want.
For me, with my Matrox G550 these options included XFree-3.3.6 with or without hardware 3D-acceleration, and XFree-4.2.1 again with or without 3D-acceleration. (why anyone would explicitly select "without" I don't know)
This has been the state of affairs atleast since Mandrake 8.0 released a year and a half ago.
I'm doing my fsck -n's in RW mode. From the less file system experienced Linux user's perspective, I wonder what ext2 does when going from RW to RO that cleans up for fsck. I can understand the value of delaying some writes, but shouldn't that get flushed when the box is not active? Would fsck -n work on a RW mounted ReiserFS, JFS, XFS or ext3?
Well, the reason whz zou get inconsistencies when doing fsck -n in rw mode is actually quite simple. Remember that fsck checks that the filesystem is consistent, this means for example: reference-counts are correct, directories all have a ".." and an "." entry, no block is both marked as being part of a file, and on the list of free blocks and so on.
Many fs-operations are not atomic. For example, to remove a directory the kernel will first remove everything it contains (including "." and "..") and then remove the directory itself. Now, what happens if fsck happens to touch the directory *between* those two steps ? That is, after "." and ".." have been removed, but before the dir itself is gone ? You'll get an inconsistency.
This is just one silly example, it's easy to think of others. You are rigth that the problems should be smaller if the filesystem has been inactive for a while so that most fs-operations are finished, but a total guarantee that everything is finished you don't get. Possibly running "sync" would be enough though, you migth try that.
remounting in ro-mode helps because it ensures that all write-operation fully completes, and also stops the kernel from making any changes to the fs in the middle of your fsck-run.
ext2 is a quite stable fs. It is not journaling, so crashing at an inconvenient time can lead to an inconsistent fs, but other than that there is no reason why an ext2 fs should magically develop inconsistencies after 3-6 weeks of runtime.
You should be aware that if you are running fsck -n on the fs while it is mounted in rw-mode, then it can and will report inconsistencies which are not real, simply because the fs has changed between the passes in fsck, something which it does not expect.
For this reason, I suggest you try again with remounting the fs in ro-mode before running fsck -n. I am fairly sure you will find that your errors go away. Especially since you state this has happened on diverse hardware and presumably diverse kernels.
That said I would recommend going with a journaling fs for that extra safety that comes from never getting inconsistent even if the power goes out at the worst moment. ext3 and reiserfs are both good, my preference would be ext3 for the simple reason that it can be mounted as an ext2-fs, which means that you will be able to read it with any old rescue-disk or whatever. Reiserfs typically requires you to redo all your rescue-disks, and make sure that your backup-restore-scheme handles it rigth.
If the remounting in ro-mode does *not* make the reported errors in fsck -n go away, and you are somehow able to reproduce this, please report the bug to linux-kernel.
When the customers ask questions, you do the obvious thing: You *answer* those questions. In this case that is extremely simple to do, and can happen for example in a FAQ as suggested by other people.
The important point is that Open Source does not mean anyone can make random changes to the sourcecode. It means that anyone can suggest changes to the sourcecode. You are offcourse free to accept or reject them as you see fit.
To the customers, there is absolutely no disadvantages whatsoever to this arrangement, and a metric ton of advantages. This should be easy to explain.
Well, you could always argue that the pen has substantial non-infringing uses, and that you did not buy it to her for the purpose of transcribing text.
However your affiliation with long-haired hacker-communist-hippies and frequent visits to known subversive sites promoting transcription such as/. will make this claim suspect.
Certainly they mean compress first, encrypt after. If you did it the other way you would achieve no compression at all since ciphertext typically has very little redundancy.
However this is exactly how PGP and GPG and presumably most other crypto-programs do it already, this is nothing new, this is obvious, and was obvious 2 decades ago.
Sure it's illegal. Transcribing is a ebook arguably defeats an "effective access-control mechanism", and thus you could argue that under DMCA not only transcribing itself is illegal, but even spreading the information about how transcribing can be performed carries fines or up to 5 years of jailtime.
Isn't it time to start tossing some tea into some water somewhere or something ?
Well, I don't know about the company, but this article is full of hype and cluelessness. Consider for example the following nugget:
Programs that encrypt computer files tend to make the files much larger, gobbling up valuable room on a hard drive or...
This is bullshit. I do not know of even a single cipher which makes the files larger. Indeed all ciphers commonly used today for file-archiving are block-ciphers which transform a fixed-size (typically 64 bit) cleartext-block into an identically sized ciphertext-block. Examples of such ciphers include DES, IDEA, Blowfish, 3-DES, AES, Twofish and many others.
Combining encryption with data compression is a natural, said Stephen Crawford, vice president of marketing.
The vice-president of marketing is not typically a good person to ask about technical issues. In this case he is correct though, it is a good idea to compress files prior to encryption, this both saves place, aswell as making certain attacks a little bit harder due to more entrophy in the compressed plaintext than in the plaintext itself.
Unfortunately for him this idea is so obvious that it's been implemented in typical encryption-programs for ages. Both PGP and GPG for example by default compress the plaintext priorto encrypting it. This is hardly novel.
True nough. But I have to point out the fact that neither Norway nor any other country I can think of will grant asylum status to an applicant based upon the applicant's national leadership being run by a knuckle-dragging inbred moron who is puppetted by a bunch of two-bit millinealist madmen
Well, maybe not. But on the other hand it's not hard for a reasonably educated person to get a work-permit in most european countries. Atleast in Norway it's a lot easier than with your "green-card" circus. (I call it a circus 'cos it includes ridiculous ideas like a freaking *lottery*)
Certainly. But in such an "agreement" all the phrasing is 100% in their favour. The entire thing only says they have all rigths, you have none whatsoever.
Let's look at a few examples:
Engage in any other conduct that is, or that American Airlines deems
to be, in conflict with this Agreement.
Now this one is the killer. Notice the OR in there. This one simply says that any conduct which they dislike is in violation of the agreement, whether such conduct is prohibited by the agreement itself or not. In effect this single statement renders the rest of the text meaningless.
American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or
provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a
separate written agreement with American Airlines.
Nonsense ! By putting up a website they implicitly allow linking to it. If they don't want people to link to it, they can take it down. "Provide reference" is even more ridiculous. Does this mean it's forbidden for me to tell anyone where to find the site ? If not, what does it mean ?
American Airlines will not treat as confidential any communications you send to us by electronic mail or otherwise. American Airlines has no
obligation to refrain from publishing, reproducing, or otherwise using your communications in any way and for any purpose.
Again nonsense. They assert that simply by accessing their website, I have to consent to their "agreement". What stops me from sending them "communications" with a similar assertment in it ?
You understand that American Airlines owns any and all information or material that you post on a Forum. You agree that you waive all of the
rights you have to any information or material that you post on a Forum. American Airlines has the right to do whatever it wishes with that
information or material, including but not limited to deleting or editing for any reason any posting by you.
So they own everything, yet in the next paragraph they say that whatever you post to the site is fully your responsibility and they have no obligations whatsoever. Now, which will it be ? Is it *their* material or *my* material ?
You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless American Airlines and its affiliates from and against any and all claims, demands,
proceedings, suits and actions, including any related liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, deficiencies, penalties, taxes, levies,
fines, judgments, settlements, expenses (including legal and accountants' fees and disbursements) and costs (collectively, "Claims"),
based on, arising out of or resulting from your use of the Site,
This says that (among other things) if you buy a ticket on the site, and they make a profit, leading to the need to pay taxes, you need to pay those taxes for them. Really. Read it again !
It goes on, but I think further commenting is needless, the "agreement" is clearly bunk, and I'd like to believe it'd never be upheld in any court in the world. Possible exception for the USA, I recommend people unlucky enough to live there to seek asylum elsewhere.
Hello ! Anybody home ? Any editors here willing to atleast *READ* the article before they link to it ?
This question is completely bogus, infact the very article linked to gives the answers sought in a section apropriately named "Defences".
You claim: However, our Linux cluster is still vulnerable to the idlescan exploit from other attackers, and I believe our company has a false sense of security. OpenBSD is the only OS I know of which randomizes the IPID sequence therefore making it invulnerable to the idlescan
This is stupid and wrong, infact the very article you link to says: Try to run operating systems with less predictable IP ID sequences, such as recent versions of OpenBSD, Solaris, or Linux. While these operating systems are immune from becoming zombies
And this is just one of the many lines of defence mentioned in the article. What's the point of sending a question to slashdot, asking a question which is answered (around 10 times !) in the very article you link to....
And editors: Is it REALLY too much to ask for that you bother to read the article before posting the nonsense "story". ???
What's wrong with just getting a bunch of boxes and start putting things into them ? Seriously. It's messy for a day or two while the moving goes on, then okay in the new home. Why would anyone want a "software program for optimizing the strategy" ?
Yes, I'd see the point if you where moving everyone from the Empire State Building to the Sears tower or something, but come on, you're talking about the furniture and stuff of an average home, not some major operation.
Do you find certain social situations difficult or awkward?
Yes. Because "certain" social situations are difficult and awkward. To everyone.
Do you feel out of place sometimes?
Yes. Because sometimes I am out of place. Like that time I accidentally entered the wrong toilet in the fancy restaurant...
Do you have bizarre certain interests that no on cares about? *computers cough cough
Yes. I admit freely to not liking Britney-Spears and soccer. This indicates independent choise, and not disease.
Do you feel smart in certain area's but lack knowledge sometimes of other different area's?
Certainly ! Nobody but a complete idiot would think he knew everything, and nobody but a person with severe self-image problems would think he knows nothing. In other words, every healthy person will answer "yes" to this question.
Do you find expressing emotions difficult even though you have them?
No more difficult than the average person, that is to say, sometimes very difficult indeed.
Do you feel yourself to be somewhat clumsy ?
Not really. Motorical skills are mostly about training though, maybe if I didn't like surfing and rock-climbing I'd be less coordinated. I fail to see what that's got to do with anything though.
As a kid did you feel more interested in complex things like science or weather rather then playing GI joe ?
Sure. You mean a young boy who finds the apollo-missions more interesting than killing must be mentally sick in some way ?
Chances are you may be mildly autistic
And chanses are that with your "test" 90% of the population are autistic.
We don't need to. You see, this thing with single sign in is complete nonsense. We can have single-sign-in without giving up anything to any central database. All we need is one (or more) authorities willing to certify a digital certificate. Here's how it'd work.
You make a public-key keypair.
You go to "trusted Authority"
TA puts his signature on your public key saying: "This public key really belongs to person X".
When you register with a bank or whomever needs security, you give them a copy of your public key.
The bank checks the signature and does know that the public key really belongs to you.
When you want to sign in, you use some sort of challenge-response protocol to proove that you possess the secret key coresponding to the public key.
And there you go. No central database. No "calling home" to inform anyone of where or how you sign up. Safe authentication with the bank, no problem.
Yes, I'm aware that there's some issues I've skipped ligthly over here, such as what to do in the event a secret key is compromised. Some system to deal with such is needed. However, my basic premise, that no central controlling server is needed stands.
It migth seem that my "TA" above is such a central authority -- not so. You could have a multitude of competing TA's and it'd be up to the banks or whatever themselves which ones they'd choose to trust.
Yes. Sure, except it was only a weekend-trip for a coding-competition, so travelling ligth and not checking anything in, thus saving lots of waiting at the airports. Otherwise I agree. Not that checked-in luggage is immune from being searched (mine is typically searched if it looks like it contains electronics or other "strange" things on x-ray), but atleast you're allowed to have razer-blades in checked in luggage.
The short answer is: the company who destroys it is responsible, but they don't like to admit it.
When I was travelling to Darmstadt rigth after 9/11, my hand luggage was searched. Inside was, among other things, an electric razer. Brute security-guard looks at it, tries opening it, but ends up instead breaking it apart. I'm told to report the damage to their "arrival office" upon arrival.
Office says it must have been badly packed. I inform them that I *saw* the guy literally breaking it apart and that the packaging doesn't really play a part. They then claim electronic devices are not covered. There's nothhing "electronic" about it I say, sure it uses electricity but there's a difference between electric and electronic. And in any case, what *should* I bring for shaving, you don't particularily like razer-blades now do you ? And are you telling me I can stand and watch one of your employees break my things apart, and then you will claim that I have to cover the loss myself ?
In the end they paid for it, but not without making a lof of unneeded fuzz about it.
Actually, Windows-support for Norwegian is not good. In Norway there are three official written languages, two forms of Norwegian (bokmål and nynorsk) and sami which a few people in the far north speak.
Of these three, Windows (and MS-Office) supports only one - namely Bokmål. True this is used by 80% of the people or something, but that still leaves 20%. KDE in contrast supports both nynorsk and bokmål, and thereby it supports 98% or more of the people (sami is spoken by quite few)
Especially in schools this is important -- there are laws that say you have in primary school the rigth to get all teaching-material in your language, as this law is today interpreted, this means only books, so Windows is allowed. However, in my opinion it would not be unreasonable to count the programs used on the computers (and the helpfiles) as part of "teaching materials". Afterall, the students are commonly required to use many of these programs, and I don't see what relevance it has that the text is on a screen instead of in a book.
Slashdot Mirror
This is available as shareware on Linux Mac and Windows, you can play the first 20% of the game for free, only if you register can you play the rest. Registration is quick and reasonably priced.
I have a hard time imagining that they are getting really rich by this arrangement though, but perhaps some money is trickling in ? I suppose I'm not the *only* person sending them cash :-)
Actually, people need to in general make sure that no auto-responders respond to mailing-list messages. On a mailing-list I'm on, each time I send a message I get a dozen or more messages back, from people I've never heard of stating they're "out of office" or whatever.
A simple technical way of doing this is to have 3 lists: a "white" list of people that can always send you email. a "black" list of people who can not. And a third, "grey" list which is initially empty.
People not in any of the lists would be sent a response with a challenge. (something along the lines of "I'm not sure if you're legit or a spammer, if you're real, please send your message again including the word 'flurryfish' somewhere in the text."
People completing the challenge successfully would be added to the greylist, and would not be challenged again in the future.
This way even strangers could send you email, if they're willing to jump trough a hoop the first time. If they're not willing to jump such a hoop, well I guess for me that indicates that their message was not really that important.
Everyone already in my adress-book would ofcourse be in the whitelist and would never see the challenge at all.
If you want to factor a 2 (base 10) digit number you do not need to make 100 trial divisions, infact even with the trivial method of trial division you need only to check up until 10. (or sqrt(num))
And there's methods much better than this, good enough that a 512-bit number has been factored.
2048bit is still uncrackable though. With the current best methods for factoring you need something like 10 or 11 bits extra for doubling the workload, so a 2048 bit key should be around 2^140 times harder than the 512-bit key.
All this assumes that no better way of factoring primes is found. Since there's been many improvements in this field in the past and there's no fundamental reason to think that the current version of the optimised number sieve is optimal I find it reasonable to expect that factoring will continue to improve.
It would have to improve a lot to make this project feasible though.
They use Thermite to blow up swarms of nanobots. Except thermite does not explode, only burn with a very high temperature.
He confuses photovoltaic with piezoelectric in several places, this is high-school stuff...
Many of the measurements are off. One device is described as one billionth of an inch. Only problem is that this is about the size of a single atom, and thus it's inconceivable that you could construct a nanobot this small.
His concept of "evolution" is absurd, and would appear so to anyone with even a very basic understanding of evolution. Evolution has to do with the survival of the more fit organisms. "evolution" can not be used to explain that one swarm of nanobots learn to evade the thermite after watching another nearby be anihilated by it. This is called "learning" and is not the same as evolution.
The list goes on. Frankly, for me it was enough to make the entire story more annoying than enjoyable. Everything doesn't need to be 100% realistic, but it's too stupid when a person writing about science doesn't even know high-school stuff like what a the photovoltaic effect is.
Works fine. The hardware is more than adequate for shuffling a few Mbps from one nic to another while inspecting some ip-headers.
Nonsense. You must be using Debian, or some other distro from the stoneage. When installing Mandrake (and presumably RedHat and SuSE) you are presented with a list of X-servers compatible to your card (the card is autodetected) and simply allowed to pick which option you want.
For me, with my Matrox G550 these options included XFree-3.3.6 with or without hardware 3D-acceleration, and XFree-4.2.1 again with or without 3D-acceleration. (why anyone would explicitly select "without" I don't know)
This has been the state of affairs atleast since Mandrake 8.0 released a year and a half ago.
Well, the reason whz zou get inconsistencies when doing fsck -n in rw mode is actually quite simple. Remember that fsck checks that the filesystem is consistent, this means for example: reference-counts are correct, directories all have a ".." and an "." entry, no block is both marked as being part of a file, and on the list of free blocks and so on.
Many fs-operations are not atomic. For example, to remove a directory the kernel will first remove everything it contains (including "." and "..") and then remove the directory itself. Now, what happens if fsck happens to touch the directory *between* those two steps ? That is, after "." and ".." have been removed, but before the dir itself is gone ? You'll get an inconsistency.
This is just one silly example, it's easy to think of others. You are rigth that the problems should be smaller if the filesystem has been inactive for a while so that most fs-operations are finished, but a total guarantee that everything is finished you don't get. Possibly running "sync" would be enough though, you migth try that.
remounting in ro-mode helps because it ensures that all write-operation fully completes, and also stops the kernel from making any changes to the fs in the middle of your fsck-run.
You should be aware that if you are running fsck -n on the fs while it is mounted in rw-mode, then it can and will report inconsistencies which are not real, simply because the fs has changed between the passes in fsck, something which it does not expect.
For this reason, I suggest you try again with remounting the fs in ro-mode before running fsck -n. I am fairly sure you will find that your errors go away. Especially since you state this has happened on diverse hardware and presumably diverse kernels.
That said I would recommend going with a journaling fs for that extra safety that comes from never getting inconsistent even if the power goes out at the worst moment. ext3 and reiserfs are both good, my preference would be ext3 for the simple reason that it can be mounted as an ext2-fs, which means that you will be able to read it with any old rescue-disk or whatever. Reiserfs typically requires you to redo all your rescue-disks, and make sure that your backup-restore-scheme handles it rigth.
If the remounting in ro-mode does *not* make the reported errors in fsck -n go away, and you are somehow able to reproduce this, please report the bug to linux-kernel.
The important point is that Open Source does not mean anyone can make random changes to the sourcecode. It means that anyone can suggest changes to the sourcecode. You are offcourse free to accept or reject them as you see fit.
To the customers, there is absolutely no disadvantages whatsoever to this arrangement, and a metric ton of advantages. This should be easy to explain.
However your affiliation with long-haired hacker-communist-hippies and frequent visits to known subversive sites promoting transcription such as /. will make this claim suspect.
Good luck in court !
However this is exactly how PGP and GPG and presumably most other crypto-programs do it already, this is nothing new, this is obvious, and was obvious 2 decades ago.
Isn't it time to start tossing some tea into some water somewhere or something ?
Programs that encrypt computer files tend to make the files much larger, gobbling up valuable room on a hard drive or ...
This is bullshit. I do not know of even a single cipher which makes the files larger. Indeed all ciphers commonly used today for file-archiving are block-ciphers which transform a fixed-size (typically 64 bit) cleartext-block into an identically sized ciphertext-block. Examples of such ciphers include DES, IDEA, Blowfish, 3-DES, AES, Twofish and many others.
Combining encryption with data compression is a natural, said Stephen Crawford, vice president of marketing.
The vice-president of marketing is not typically a good person to ask about technical issues. In this case he is correct though, it is a good idea to compress files prior to encryption, this both saves place, aswell as making certain attacks a little bit harder due to more entrophy in the compressed plaintext than in the plaintext itself.
Unfortunately for him this idea is so obvious that it's been implemented in typical encryption-programs for ages. Both PGP and GPG for example by default compress the plaintext priorto encrypting it. This is hardly novel.
Well, maybe not. But on the other hand it's not hard for a reasonably educated person to get a work-permit in most european countries. Atleast in Norway it's a lot easier than with your "green-card" circus. (I call it a circus 'cos it includes ridiculous ideas like a freaking *lottery*)
Let's look at a few examples:
Engage in any other conduct that is, or that American Airlines deems to be, in conflict with this Agreement.
Now this one is the killer. Notice the OR in there. This one simply says that any conduct which they dislike is in violation of the agreement, whether such conduct is prohibited by the agreement itself or not. In effect this single statement renders the rest of the text meaningless.
American Airlines specifically denies you permission to hyperlink or provide references to the Site, unless you are allowed to do so under a separate written agreement with American Airlines.
Nonsense ! By putting up a website they implicitly allow linking to it. If they don't want people to link to it, they can take it down. "Provide reference" is even more ridiculous. Does this mean it's forbidden for me to tell anyone where to find the site ? If not, what does it mean ?
American Airlines will not treat as confidential any communications you send to us by electronic mail or otherwise. American Airlines has no obligation to refrain from publishing, reproducing, or otherwise using your communications in any way and for any purpose. Again nonsense. They assert that simply by accessing their website, I have to consent to their "agreement". What stops me from sending them "communications" with a similar assertment in it ?
You understand that American Airlines owns any and all information or material that you post on a Forum. You agree that you waive all of the rights you have to any information or material that you post on a Forum. American Airlines has the right to do whatever it wishes with that information or material, including but not limited to deleting or editing for any reason any posting by you.
So they own everything, yet in the next paragraph they say that whatever you post to the site is fully your responsibility and they have no obligations whatsoever. Now, which will it be ? Is it *their* material or *my* material ?
You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless American Airlines and its affiliates from and against any and all claims, demands, proceedings, suits and actions, including any related liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, deficiencies, penalties, taxes, levies, fines, judgments, settlements, expenses (including legal and accountants' fees and disbursements) and costs (collectively, "Claims"), based on, arising out of or resulting from your use of the Site,
This says that (among other things) if you buy a ticket on the site, and they make a profit, leading to the need to pay taxes, you need to pay those taxes for them. Really. Read it again !
It goes on, but I think further commenting is needless, the "agreement" is clearly bunk, and I'd like to believe it'd never be upheld in any court in the world. Possible exception for the USA, I recommend people unlucky enough to live there to seek asylum elsewhere.
This question is completely bogus, infact the very article linked to gives the answers sought in a section apropriately named "Defences".
You claim: However, our Linux cluster is still vulnerable to the idlescan exploit from other attackers, and I believe our company has a false sense of security. OpenBSD is the only OS I know of which randomizes the IPID sequence therefore making it invulnerable to the idlescan
This is stupid and wrong, infact the very article you link to says: Try to run operating systems with less predictable IP ID sequences, such as recent versions of OpenBSD, Solaris, or Linux. While these operating systems are immune from becoming zombies
And this is just one of the many lines of defence mentioned in the article. What's the point of sending a question to slashdot, asking a question which is answered (around 10 times !) in the very article you link to....
And editors: Is it REALLY too much to ask for that you bother to read the article before posting the nonsense "story". ???
Yes, I'd see the point if you where moving everyone from the Empire State Building to the Sears tower or something, but come on, you're talking about the furniture and stuff of an average home, not some major operation.
Yes. Because "certain" social situations are difficult and awkward. To everyone.
Do you feel out of place sometimes?
Yes. Because sometimes I am out of place. Like that time I accidentally entered the wrong toilet in the fancy restaurant...
Do you have bizarre certain interests that no on cares about? *computers cough cough
Yes. I admit freely to not liking Britney-Spears and soccer. This indicates independent choise, and not disease.
Do you feel smart in certain area's but lack knowledge sometimes of other different area's?
Certainly ! Nobody but a complete idiot would think he knew everything, and nobody but a person with severe self-image problems would think he knows nothing. In other words, every healthy person will answer "yes" to this question.
Do you find expressing emotions difficult even though you have them?
No more difficult than the average person, that is to say, sometimes very difficult indeed.
Do you feel yourself to be somewhat clumsy ?
Not really. Motorical skills are mostly about training though, maybe if I didn't like surfing and rock-climbing I'd be less coordinated. I fail to see what that's got to do with anything though.
As a kid did you feel more interested in complex things like science or weather rather then playing GI joe ?
Sure. You mean a young boy who finds the apollo-missions more interesting than killing must be mentally sick in some way ?
Chances are you may be mildly autistic
And chanses are that with your "test" 90% of the population are autistic.
The DMCA forbids publishing information on how to bypass an "effective access-control mechanism"
The Linux-kernel and other software includes many features which restrict or regulate access
Bugs in the kernel can frequently be exploited to bypass the access-controls
Thus Publishing information on the bugs can easily be seen as equivalent to publishing information on how to bypass the access-restrictions
For this, you could face prison up to 5 years, and/or fines of up to $50.000.
Yes it's absurd. Yes it's stupid. Yes the law should be repealed tomorrow. Go do something about it!
- You make a public-key keypair.
- You go to "trusted Authority"
- TA puts his signature on your public key saying: "This public key really belongs to person X".
- When you register with a bank or whomever needs security, you give them a copy of your public key.
- The bank checks the signature and does know that the public key really belongs to you.
- When you want to sign in, you use some sort of challenge-response protocol to proove that you possess the secret key coresponding to the public key.
And there you go. No central database. No "calling home" to inform anyone of where or how you sign up. Safe authentication with the bank, no problem.Yes, I'm aware that there's some issues I've skipped ligthly over here, such as what to do in the event a secret key is compromised. Some system to deal with such is needed. However, my basic premise, that no central controlling server is needed stands.
It migth seem that my "TA" above is such a central authority -- not so. You could have a multitude of competing TA's and it'd be up to the banks or whatever themselves which ones they'd choose to trust.
Yes. Sure, except it was only a weekend-trip for a coding-competition, so travelling ligth and not checking anything in, thus saving lots of waiting at the airports. Otherwise I agree. Not that checked-in luggage is immune from being searched (mine is typically searched if it looks like it contains electronics or other "strange" things on x-ray), but atleast you're allowed to have razer-blades in checked in luggage.
When I was travelling to Darmstadt rigth after 9/11, my hand luggage was searched. Inside was, among other things, an electric razer. Brute security-guard looks at it, tries opening it, but ends up instead breaking it apart. I'm told to report the damage to their "arrival office" upon arrival.
Office says it must have been badly packed. I inform them that I *saw* the guy literally breaking it apart and that the packaging doesn't really play a part. They then claim electronic devices are not covered. There's nothhing "electronic" about it I say, sure it uses electricity but there's a difference between electric and electronic. And in any case, what *should* I bring for shaving, you don't particularily like razer-blades now do you ? And are you telling me I can stand and watch one of your employees break my things apart, and then you will claim that I have to cover the loss myself ?
In the end they paid for it, but not without making a lof of unneeded fuzz about it.
Of these three, Windows (and MS-Office) supports only one - namely Bokmål. True this is used by 80% of the people or something, but that still leaves 20%. KDE in contrast supports both nynorsk and bokmål, and thereby it supports 98% or more of the people (sami is spoken by quite few)
Especially in schools this is important -- there are laws that say you have in primary school the rigth to get all teaching-material in your language, as this law is today interpreted, this means only books, so Windows is allowed. However, in my opinion it would not be unreasonable to count the programs used on the computers (and the helpfiles) as part of "teaching materials". Afterall, the students are commonly required to use many of these programs, and I don't see what relevance it has that the text is on a screen instead of in a book.
I said "unless your high ping is caused by congestion".