Here's the detail I don't understand... presumably Microsoft believes that issuing a patch in turn signals a vulnerability that is then exploited. Ok, whatever...... but here's the part I don't get... have you ever read microsoft's "detailed" information when installing a patch? The "detailed" information usually reads something like:
"This patch fixes a vulnerability in the operating system that could allow an attacker to do something with your computer, perhaps causing the death of cute kittens".
Ok, so I added the kittens part... but the rest of it is typically how it reads! NO DETAILS about *EXACTLY* what is vulnerable.
Microsoft's reasoning is absolutely false. My past experience shows that microsoft's "what patch do we write next" list comes from bugtraq after vulnerabilities are discovered.
This proves one thing... why is marijuana still illegal?
To the point -- Our government obviously believes it's necessary to protect us from our own behaviors via devices such as the "ignition interlock". They argue, "well, you're impaired - you can't make that decision on your own". Well fine! So why then is marijuana still illegal? Impairment from marijuana is in the same playground as impairment from alcohol. With more and more devices coming into use that will supposedly prevent me from doing certain things while I'm impaired, why is marijuana still illegal?
Why stop at alcohol and marijuana... why not E, Coke, or other illicit drugs?
My point is this... if the government is successful at controlling what we can and can't do while under the influence of certain substances, there stands no reason to keep certain substances illegal. But, is it worth the trade-off? Allow our government to control our behavior like this? I don't think so.
The American Revolution 2.0 -- coming to a theater near you.
... and then such a case could turn the other way... counter-sue and everything is reversed. It would be my pile of evidence and their turn to prove that I saw their code, and if they can't, they lose.
It's not like computer resources are expensive these days. Who cares if you think it's "heavy"... it really isn't. Applications written in.NET and compiled are typically small and easily distributed.
Who cares if you can write a "CGI application" in C. Can you write an enterprise level software application? Authoring enterprise software is an expensive proposition -- and why not use.NET (yes, I like it and I'm a hard-core linux guy!) to develop the app in half the time, with the result being twice as good.
Until you have some first hand experience with.NET, you should keep your yapper shut.
Groklaw has warned that anyone who gains access to the Windows source, whether or not they actually read it, may legally impair their ability to make contributions to open source resembling anything that exists in Windows.
Yeah, words can make a good threat... except the counter-argument in court would only need to be 2 words long... "prove it". Go ahead, prove that *I* have seen the source. Good luck with that. Code similarity is not proof. Case dismissed.
Given that microsoft's.NET implementation is a freebie anyway, I think it would be in Microsoft's interest to make sure that Office.NET can run on non-ms implementations of the.NET framework. Office *is* a cash cow... why not increase sales by ensuring that it can run on all other platforms, linux included! Yes, people would buy it, and microsoft would gain "a foot in the door" on other platforms as well. Can we say, "embrace and extend"?.NET is perfect for that.
If users didn't suck so much, then descriptive dir names would easily solve the problem of trying to locate a wedding photograph on a hard drive.
So what, the image file is named "DSC0001.JPG" -- who cares. Put it in a folder named "my images" and there's no wonder you can't find it!! Put it in a folder named "wedding photos", and then you've got something there!
The best way to describe it to the average joe (non)user is that directories/folders are analogous to folders in a filing cabinet. Would you file telephone bills, for example, under "mortgage" or "telephone"?
Thanks Microsoft for "my photos", and "my documents", and the like. We appreciate it!
Interesting concept... I thought of this 2 years ago and I'm now kicking myself in the balls for not acting on it! (not literally)
In my version of "port knocking", everything was going to be controled via ICMP echo packets.. aka "ping".
A single Ping packet can contain arbitrary data of an arbitrary length less than 64k. Through a config file, the system admin could define ping sequences using time, data, and/or packet size, along with a specified script to execute on each successful reception of the ping sequence.
Then, remotely, people who know the ping sequences could use almost any available ping utility on any machine to open remote ports, etc.
The concept of executing a script, rather than opening or closing ports, allows for more flexibility. Not only can the admin open and close ports via scripts, but could do other useful things.
Hey Jackass... Did I miss something? Where did I mention that I believed this stuff? I've simply contributed something relevant to the conversation, whether you believe the content or not.
Since you don't seem to be up on subtle reading clues, I'll help you out... referring to "Area 51 conspiracy theorists" in the 3rd person indicates that I'm not one of 'em. Got it?
Ok, with that established... the fact that ununpentium has appeared on Area 51 conspiracy sites is quite fascinating!
I'll repeat again this again... I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist. I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist. I referred to that group in the 3rd person. Ok? I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist, and I don't believe things I read on conspiracy web sites.
One final memo, just to make the point clear -- I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist and I don't believe things I read on tabloid-style conspiracy web sites, despite the entertainment value.
Interesting notion... I happened to stumble across a reference to this "ununpentium" the other day while satisfying my science fiction curiosities on a site called "AboveTopSecret.com". Apparently, some of the Area 51 conspiracy theorists believe it's used in anti-gravity research... or something like that.
Document about ununpentium published in 1999: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/element 115.htm l
Lets just be slightly objective here, rather than immediately accuse the "evil republicans" because it's the trendy thing to do.
There's nothing in the article that specifically points fingers at republicans. Hell, these memos could be leaked by the very democrats that receive the memos! These memos could be leaked by the interns that handle these things.
It's also entirely possible that this could be a well timed pawn in the Democrat's strategy to regain control of the country... being a few days away from democrat elections and all.
Of course, this brings forth another point... what are members of the senate doing in secret that need to be kept out of public view? The correct answer should be NOTHING, and therefore, all memos should be open to the public anyway. I'd advise that we shouldn't re-elect secretive, unaccountable senators at the next election.
I left a job this past October after 5 years... literally was on the brink of going insane. You'd go insane in this environment too.
The building was a non-descript structure without any external signage. Just a bland brick building like every other in this section of Portland, ME.
Inside, the office, was... well, entirely comprised of gray. The office floor was wall-to-wall carpet... a bluish shade of gray. Moving up, the walls were gray... about shade #DDDDDD. Moving up to the top, the ceiling was the same shade of gray as the walls.
So, lets say you're an office furniture outfitter... what's the first thing you do when you walk into an empty office with completely gray floors, walls and ceilings? You guessed it... you fill it full of gray office furniture. Gray cubicles, gray filing cabinets, gray desks and gray computers.
Then, the old *gray* haired guy that ran the company, who really should not have been authorized to operate a software company in the first place, hired a couple of talented programmers to maintain some old school crappy over-priced DOS app written in Qbasic. Sweeeeeeeet!
On my first day, they ordered my standard issue business cards... can you guess what color?? Blue? No. Red? No. Fluorescent orange? No. Fucking gray!
I really thought about slitting my wrists to put some color on the walls.
I'm not advocating that we should make "cheaper" satellites in the sense that they should be of lesser quality. BUT... by reducing the amount of fuel needed to carry on board, (because a tug will meet it in space for its thrust needs), the satellite can now weigh LESS than before... meaning, it could potentially be launched on a smaller rocket. At something like $10,000 per pound to put something in orbit, saving a few pounds on fuel could mean extra available dollars in the budget for other areas of the sattelite... that extra sensor, or that better chip, etc.
Ok, this is a great idea... attach a "tug" to a satellite once it's used up it's propellant.
Well, if a satellite is good for 10-15 years before it would need a "tug", why not just give it a "tug" right at the start?
Here's my idea... lets build a fleet of space tugs and store them at the ISS. Whenever a satellite is launched, launch it with a small amount of propellant... just enough to do some basic maneuvering to get the orbital situation correct immediately after launch. Then, via a standard adapter that would be built on all new satellites, a tug would be sent from the ISS to mate with the satellite. From there on out, the tug would take care of the satellite's propulsion and perhaps even provide the satellite with back-up solar power.
Think of the possibilities of this system... sattelites would be lighter due to the decreased amount of propellant onboard, thus, cheaper to launch. The space tugs themselves could be fairly cheap to build and launch, especially in quantity. Space engineers would also gain a standard system for propulsion, so it's likely that the same set of ground controls could be utilized for every satellite fit with a standard space tug.
There might be more benefits, and I'm sure there are a few draw-backs, but I can't think of any at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the detail I don't understand... presumably Microsoft believes that issuing a patch in turn signals a vulnerability that is then exploited. Ok, whatever... ... but here's the part I don't get... have you ever read microsoft's "detailed" information when installing a patch? The "detailed" information usually reads something like:
"This patch fixes a vulnerability in the operating system that could allow an attacker to do something with your computer, perhaps causing the death of cute kittens".
Ok, so I added the kittens part... but the rest of it is typically how it reads! NO DETAILS about *EXACTLY* what is vulnerable.
Microsoft's reasoning is absolutely false. My past experience shows that microsoft's "what patch do we write next" list comes from bugtraq after vulnerabilities are discovered.
Yeah, I feel like stringing up a dipole antenna between two telephone poles and working CW DX @ 1500 watts. Sounds like fun!
-- de N1ZPP
The answer is handicap plates ...
Got asthma? Handicap plate.
Got COPD? Handicap plate.
Got lung cancer? Handicap plate.
Got obsessive compulsive disorder? Handicap plate.
Guilty until proven innocent. Fuck that, I hereby declare my own country.
This proves one thing ... why is marijuana still illegal?
... why not E, Coke, or other illicit drugs?
To the point -- Our government obviously believes it's necessary to protect us from our own behaviors via devices such as the "ignition interlock". They argue, "well, you're impaired - you can't make that decision on your own". Well fine! So why then is marijuana still illegal? Impairment from marijuana is in the same playground as impairment from alcohol. With more and more devices coming into use that will supposedly prevent me from doing certain things while I'm impaired, why is marijuana still illegal?
Why stop at alcohol and marijuana
My point is this... if the government is successful at controlling what we can and can't do while under the influence of certain substances, there stands no reason to keep certain substances illegal. But, is it worth the trade-off? Allow our government to control our behavior like this? I don't think so.
The American Revolution 2.0 -- coming to a theater near you.
... and then such a case could turn the other way ... counter-sue and everything is reversed. It would be my pile of evidence and their turn to prove that I saw their code, and if they can't, they lose.
That was an "I" in the 3rd person used to illustrate the point. I personally have not seen the source.
It's not like computer resources are expensive these days. Who cares if you think it's "heavy" ... it really isn't. Applications written in .NET and compiled are typically small and easily distributed.
.NET (yes, I like it and I'm a hard-core linux guy!) to develop the app in half the time, with the result being twice as good.
.NET, you should keep your yapper shut.
Who cares if you can write a "CGI application" in C. Can you write an enterprise level software application? Authoring enterprise software is an expensive proposition -- and why not use
Until you have some first hand experience with
Groklaw has warned that anyone who gains access to the Windows source, whether or not they actually read it, may legally impair their ability to make contributions to open source resembling anything that exists in Windows.
... except the counter-argument in court would only need to be 2 words long ... "prove it". Go ahead, prove that *I* have seen the source. Good luck with that. Code similarity is not proof. Case dismissed.
Yeah, words can make a good threat
Given that microsoft's .NET implementation is a freebie anyway, I think it would be in Microsoft's interest to make sure that Office.NET can run on non-ms implementations of the .NET framework. Office *is* a cash cow... why not increase sales by ensuring that it can run on all other platforms, linux included! Yes, people would buy it, and microsoft would gain "a foot in the door" on other platforms as well. Can we say, "embrace and extend"? .NET is perfect for that.
Telnet to port 80 at the target IP, issue a valid http 1.1 GET and don't forget to pass the Host header in your request. Viola! Like magic.
... and then we're going to take back the internet!!! YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!
---
Memo to Mr. Dean: When you say things like, "we're going to take back the white house", exactly *who* took it? The spanish inquisition?
Which wedding? You're a classic illustration of my point! Put the pictures in a folder called "Mike and Sue's Wedding" ... how difficult was that?
If users didn't suck so much, then descriptive dir names would easily solve the problem of trying to locate a wedding photograph on a hard drive.
So what, the image file is named "DSC0001.JPG" -- who cares. Put it in a folder named "my images" and there's no wonder you can't find it!! Put it in a folder named "wedding photos", and then you've got something there!
The best way to describe it to the average joe (non)user is that directories/folders are analogous to folders in a filing cabinet. Would you file telephone bills, for example, under "mortgage" or "telephone"?
Thanks Microsoft for "my photos", and "my documents", and the like. We appreciate it!
Interesting concept... I thought of this 2 years ago and I'm now kicking myself in the balls for not acting on it! (not literally)
In my version of "port knocking", everything was going to be controled via ICMP echo packets.. aka "ping".
A single Ping packet can contain arbitrary data of an arbitrary length less than 64k. Through a config file, the system admin could define ping sequences using time, data, and/or packet size, along with a specified script to execute on each successful reception of the ping sequence.
Then, remotely, people who know the ping sequences could use almost any available ping utility on any machine to open remote ports, etc.
The concept of executing a script, rather than opening or closing ports, allows for more flexibility. Not only can the admin open and close ports via scripts, but could do other useful things.
Hey Jackass ... Did I miss something? Where did I mention that I believed this stuff? I've simply contributed something relevant to the conversation, whether you believe the content or not.
... referring to "Area 51 conspiracy theorists" in the 3rd person indicates that I'm not one of 'em. Got it?
Since you don't seem to be up on subtle reading clues, I'll help you out
Ok, with that established... the fact that ununpentium has appeared on Area 51 conspiracy sites is quite fascinating!
I'll repeat again this again... I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist. I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist. I referred to that group in the 3rd person. Ok? I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist, and I don't believe things I read on conspiracy web sites.
One final memo, just to make the point clear -- I'm not an Area 51 conspiracy theorist and I don't believe things I read on tabloid-style conspiracy web sites, despite the entertainment value.
Geez.
Interesting notion ... I happened to stumble across a reference to this "ununpentium" the other day while satisfying my science fiction curiosities on a site called "AboveTopSecret.com". Apparently, some of the Area 51 conspiracy theorists believe it's used in anti-gravity research... or something like that.
t 115.htm l
Document about ununpentium published in 1999:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/elemen
Personally, I'd wait until version 5.2 because we all know that .0 and .1 releases are unstable, and you certainly wouldn't want your ears falling off.
-- disclaimer: This absolutely the most retarded post I've ever made.
... and vice-versa.
Yeah, I've read the article you moron... your assertion that I'd write an RTFA post without reading the article is absurd and insulting.
So answer this -- why the hell do they need to make strategize in secrecy? Sinister motives perhaps?
Lets just be slightly objective here, rather than immediately accuse the "evil republicans" because it's the trendy thing to do.
There's nothing in the article that specifically points fingers at republicans. Hell, these memos could be leaked by the very democrats that receive the memos! These memos could be leaked by the interns that handle these things.
It's also entirely possible that this could be a well timed pawn in the Democrat's strategy to regain control of the country... being a few days away from democrat elections and all.
Of course, this brings forth another point... what are members of the senate doing in secret that need to be kept out of public view? The correct answer should be NOTHING, and therefore, all memos should be open to the public anyway. I'd advise that we shouldn't re-elect secretive, unaccountable senators at the next election.
I left a job this past October after 5 years... literally was on the brink of going insane. You'd go insane in this environment too.
The building was a non-descript structure without any external signage. Just a bland brick building like every other in this section of Portland, ME.
Inside, the office, was... well, entirely comprised of gray. The office floor was wall-to-wall carpet... a bluish shade of gray. Moving up, the walls were gray... about shade #DDDDDD. Moving up to the top, the ceiling was the same shade of gray as the walls.
So, lets say you're an office furniture outfitter... what's the first thing you do when you walk into an empty office with completely gray floors, walls and ceilings? You guessed it... you fill it full of gray office furniture. Gray cubicles, gray filing cabinets, gray desks and gray computers.
Then, the old *gray* haired guy that ran the company, who really should not have been authorized to operate a software company in the first place, hired a couple of talented programmers to maintain some old school crappy over-priced DOS app written in Qbasic. Sweeeeeeeet!
On my first day, they ordered my standard issue business cards... can you guess what color?? Blue? No. Red? No. Fluorescent orange? No. Fucking gray!
I really thought about slitting my wrists to put some color on the walls.
I really think that cell phones are an integral part of ... umm ... hang on a sec, my cell is ringing...
... crap! I forgot the point I was trying to make.
[away]
I'm not advocating that we should make "cheaper" satellites in the sense that they should be of lesser quality. BUT... by reducing the amount of fuel needed to carry on board, (because a tug will meet it in space for its thrust needs), the satellite can now weigh LESS than before... meaning, it could potentially be launched on a smaller rocket. At something like $10,000 per pound to put something in orbit, saving a few pounds on fuel could mean extra available dollars in the budget for other areas of the sattelite... that extra sensor, or that better chip, etc.
Flaimbait?!?!? HAHAHAHAHA... thats the moderation of a disgruntled communist that dislikes the truth. Good stuff, comrad!
Ok, this is a great idea... attach a "tug" to a satellite once it's used up it's propellant.
Well, if a satellite is good for 10-15 years before it would need a "tug", why not just give it a "tug" right at the start?
Here's my idea... lets build a fleet of space tugs and store them at the ISS. Whenever a satellite is launched, launch it with a small amount of propellant... just enough to do some basic maneuvering to get the orbital situation correct immediately after launch. Then, via a standard adapter that would be built on all new satellites, a tug would be sent from the ISS to mate with the satellite. From there on out, the tug would take care of the satellite's propulsion and perhaps even provide the satellite with back-up solar power.
Think of the possibilities of this system... sattelites would be lighter due to the decreased amount of propellant onboard, thus, cheaper to launch. The space tugs themselves could be fairly cheap to build and launch, especially in quantity. Space engineers would also gain a standard system for propulsion, so it's likely that the same set of ground controls could be utilized for every satellite fit with a standard space tug.
There might be more benefits, and I'm sure there are a few draw-backs, but I can't think of any at the moment.