Very simple. If you don't compile the source or patch the code yourself, you have no way of knowing what, if anything, your RPM/etc. is patched for, which specific CERT advisories, etc.
Sure you do. You check the changelog. If you don't trust the packager, get the source package and look it over. If you really don't trust the packager, get the tar.gz sources.
All I was asking was whether the message in the changelog I saw was about this bug or another, new one. I was confused because I got the fix weeks ago, and heard about it several other places weeks ago. Now all of a sudden it pops up on Slashdot.
So the problem isn't packages, it is the variable pace of news on the net. I.e., it apparently takes CERT quite a while (~2 weeks) to publish a notice, by which time the fix is already in place on quite a few systems.
And I don't think there is anything elite about installing raw source all the time. You try to manage a few dozen workstations and servers running quite a few packages not found in the standard distribution (RedHat in this case) without package management. Hardly possible, I assure you.
Package management is something I am thankful for everyday. Hell, I even make packages for software that is only released internally because it is just so much easier to install that way.
guarentee that 90% of the people reading this are safe.
I think you are wrong. A lot of people install ssh from the ssh rpms available on rpmfind. The us versions here are compiled with RSAREF. But I think the latest version fixes this. See my other post.
just installed SSH1 v1.2.27 last night on a new machine. I got lazy and installed via a SRPM, and didn't do anything more than 'rpm --rebuild./ssh-1_2_27-5us_src.rpm'. It's uses RSAREF. Bummer.
Okay, I have heard about this RSA/ssh buffer overrun thing for a few weeks now. So I do
[rangek@pinot-noir rangek]$ ssh -V SSH Version 1.2.27 [i586-unknown-linux], protocol version 1.5. Compiled with RSAREF.
But then I do
[rangek@pinot-noir rangek]$ rpm -q --queryformat '%{CHANGELOGTEXT}"\n"' ssh - RSAref buffer overrun patch (rsa.c) as described in Core SDI advisory from December 1, 1999. Thanks to Oystein Viggen for sending me this patch."
So is this the fix for the advisory in the story or is this another new problem that this package is vulnerable to?
But science can NEVER make something out of nothing. Only God can.
Okay, fine. But what if they do create life. Then what, eh? Are they/we God now?
For those of you who don't share my beliefs, that's fine. This is just my point of view. You're entitled to your own, just as I am.
I am not trying to belittle your beliefs. Hell, you might be right for all I know. I am just posing the question "What are the implications for your belief system if this works?" Kinda a devil's advocate thing;)
Being harsh about the "definition of life" is kind of silly.
You misunderstand me I think. I agree with you. There is no clear cut "definition of life" in science. Generally, we know what we are talking about when we say, "the cat is alive, but teh table isn't."
It is when you get to this point we are now at, the border to building "life" from "non-life" that things get hazy. But eventually, where we draw the line between something that is alive and something that is not will have vast ethical implications. Just like the "when is a fetus alive" or "is this computer/animal conscious" questions.
So that is why I went of about the poster's sloppy, cavalier use of the phrase "definition of life". In the scientific context (which I hope every one is discussing this in), that phrase has no meaning without further explaination.
Basically, there is too many three line posts around here trying to comment on something I don't think anyone really understands.
They simulated the conditions of preprehistoric earth... volcanoes... lightning... they created a bacteria that would absorb "food" but it would not procreate. So by the definition of life it was not alive.
There were no volcanoes in Miller's experiment, only electric arcs (lightning).
He most certainly did not create a bacteria!
And as for this alledged bacteria, what "definition of life" are you applying. While I agree that a creature such as you describe is not alive, I am amazed at how you banty about the phrase "definition of life", like we have this all figured out already.
It is uninformed, incorrect posts such as these that threaten to make the internet practically useless as a learning tool. I can only pity the poor student who searches for information about this article and ends up reading this mostly ignorant discussion.
Hmmm...that was a little harsh, but i just don't see why people bother posting if they know nothing about what they are talking about.
I read somewhere once, that a group of scientists had built a tank of gasses that were similar to earth when life supposedly evolved.. according to darwin's notes.. and they did get amino acids to form.. it was interesting, but I probably got the details somewhat wrong since I think it's been 6 years since I read it.. does anyone know what it is i'm referring to? who did it, where it was done?
You are refering to Stanley Miller's experiment where he tried to create the compounds found in living things from a mixture of gases hypothesized to approximate conditions on Earth way back when.
I am quite sure that Miller was not working from Darwin's notes, however. The mixture of gases Miller used came from much more modern sources.
BTW, Miller was mildly sucessful, creating several interesting things in his apparatus. However these compunds were still far to simple and lacked the stereochemical chemical properties found in living things.
Question: if spice is needed for space travel, how did we get to Arakis in the first place?
If you check out the relevant entries in The Dune Encylopedia you will find the answer to your question. Specifically, it is possible to travel as the Guild Navigators do without the spice, but it is very dangerous and requires computers which are not available in the Dune world. Thus, Arrakis and the spice were found by travelling as above, and they haven't gone back since.
Let me tell you about my travails with Xig and GLX. Our research group just bought Xi's ~$300 package that promises to allow us to run on an SGI, display on Linux. (Which I couldn't get XFree to do). Well, imagine our surprise when we fire up this expensive boondoggle, and find that we are getting the same error!
Needless to say, I fired off a pretty scathing email to their tech support, to which I got a "we are forwarding this to our head programmer." Somewhere along the way, his reply got lost, but when I finally got it, it was basically a very techincal, "It is the application's fault for not doing OpenGL right."
Well, this maybe true, and I am tracking it down. But I have my doubts about this explaination. It is too convienent... It is like they know I don't have time to fiddle with this...
BTW, I promise to post a nice little ditty about Xig if this all eventually turns out to be the application's fault. But ofr now, I am pissed.
...does anyone actually use the term "grok" in conversation?
Sure, I hear/use it all of the time. It is not a geek thing per se, but a sci-fi thing. Not all geeks are sci-fi fans, and not all sci-fi fans have read Stranger in a Strange Land, hence, the paucity of grok usage in your vicinity.
Did anyone else think of Red Mars and start to worry about the idea of a Space Elevator? At least when a rocket explodes or a satellite orbit decays, it only ruins a small chunk of real estate.
Sure, it would be cool... but you won't catch me moving to the equator.
I think this wouldn't be a problem if you made the elevator from "bucky-tubes." It would be very light, and probably would just burn-up/float away before any real damage could be done.
Proteins interact with each other based on their shapes, and the attracting or repelling forces of their constituent parts. When they bind to each other, it works much like a lock and key (when they briefly mesh to facilitate some reaction, then break apart) or interlocking puzzle pieces (when they bind more permanently). Much more of a tactile than an optical event.
As a theoretical chemist, I must object. The interaction of two molecules is a consequence of electrostatics and the quantum mechanical properties of the electron (e.g., exchange and correlation, etc.)
To call these complex interaction "tactile" (while infinitely better than calling them optical) is just plain wrong.
As far as the hardware vs. software issue, I don't think you can apply those paradigms here. The protiens a piece of DNA codes for is a function of structure, and the actual enzyme is far more complex than the protien encoded for. For example, once assembled, a protien may go through several chemical changes before it becomes "activated" (e.g., picking up metal ions or other chemical moieties). So one could say that the protien has a program too.
Since one can call anything in a cell hardware or software to one degree or another, I don't think these analogies help to elucidate anything biological or physical in this case.
The example I read said something about a bad famine causing a population to not grow as tall during that generation - but that subsequent generations also didn't get as tall as before the famine, but were heading that way.
Could it also be that regular old natural selection is at work here? People who "wasted" scarce resources growing "needlessly" tall died out, while those who had a predisposition to shortness survived.
Cook the gene pool under said conditions and cool. The population is now shorter, obstensibly due to malnutrition.
But wait a bit longer, and see that new generations are getting taller now that the selective pressure is removed.
Phenomena explained, using only standard evolutionary/genetic theory, and by Occam's Razor is a better explaination.
Now I am not saying that this methylation thingy is wrong. But it is not necessary to explain the phenomena you cited.
BTW, I am not a biologist, by I am a chemist, and I have done a little work studying methylation of DNA, specifically as a way to treat cancer.
I am no expert on all of this, but i am a chemist (theoretical, no inorganic).
Copper atoms are heavier than aluminum atoms... it [gold] diffuses like lightning...
Gold is even heavier than copper, and therefore should diffuse less and be less suseptible to electromigration. So while what you say may indeed be true, I question you explainations of these phenomena...
Check out this O'Reilly book. There are a few good essays in there about software engineering, in general and specifically dealing with open source. Like "Software Engineering" by Paul Vixie. Hope this helps.
Actually, I *believe* you can have 3-4 IDE controllers on a single mobo. Most only have 2 for economic reasons, and the bios only controls the 2 on the mobo. There are adapter cards that can be plugged into the motherboard, which may have seperate bios setups (like SCSI), I'm not sure.
I believe you are correct. As a matter of fact, I would bet a chunk of pretty polly that the number of IDE channels allowed has nothing to do with the mobo or the BIOS. It is merely a function of how many IDE channels are on the mobo and how many are on your "additional" controller.
Of course having more than one "extra" controller in a box might be a bit tricky...
Slashdot Mirror
Very simple. If you don't compile the source or patch the code yourself, you have no way of knowing what, if anything, your RPM/etc. is patched for, which specific CERT advisories, etc.
Sure you do. You check the changelog. If you don't trust the packager, get the source package and look it over. If you really don't trust the packager, get the tar.gz sources.
All I was asking was whether the message in the changelog I saw was about this bug or another, new one. I was confused because I got the fix weeks ago, and heard about it several other places weeks ago. Now all of a sudden it pops up on Slashdot.
So the problem isn't packages, it is the variable pace of news on the net. I.e., it apparently takes CERT quite a while (~2 weeks) to publish a notice, by which time the fix is already in place on quite a few systems.
And I don't think there is anything elite about installing raw source all the time. You try to manage a few dozen workstations and servers running quite a few packages not found in the standard distribution (RedHat in this case) without package management. Hardly possible, I assure you.
Package management is something I am thankful for everyday. Hell, I even make packages for software that is only released internally because it is just so much easier to install that way.
guarentee that 90% of the people reading this are safe.
I think you are wrong. A lot of people install ssh from the ssh rpms available on rpmfind. The us versions here are compiled with RSAREF. But I think the latest version fixes this. See my other post.
just installed SSH1 v1.2.27 last night on a new machine. I got lazy and installed via a SRPM, and didn't do anything more than 'rpm --rebuild ./ssh-1_2_27-5us_src.rpm'. It's uses RSAREF. Bummer.
See my other post.
I think 1.2.27-7us fixed this bug.
Okay, I have heard about this RSA/ssh buffer overrun thing for a few weeks now. So I do
[rangek@pinot-noir rangek]$ ssh -V
SSH Version 1.2.27 [i586-unknown-linux], protocol version 1.5.
Compiled with RSAREF.
But then I do
[rangek@pinot-noir rangek]$ rpm -q --queryformat '%{CHANGELOGTEXT}"\n"' ssh
- RSAref buffer overrun patch (rsa.c) as described in Core SDI advisory
from December 1, 1999. Thanks to Oystein Viggen for sending me this patch."
So is this the fix for the advisory in the story or is this another new problem that this package is vulnerable to?
But science can NEVER make something out of nothing. Only God can.
Okay, fine. But what if they do create life. Then what, eh? Are they/we God now?
For those of you who don't share my beliefs, that's fine. This is just my point of view. You're entitled to your own, just as I am.
I am not trying to belittle your beliefs. Hell, you might be right for all I know. I am just posing the question "What are the implications for your belief system if this works?" Kinda a devil's advocate thing ;)
Being harsh about the "definition of life" is kind of silly.
You misunderstand me I think. I agree with you. There is no clear cut "definition of life" in science. Generally, we know what we are talking about when we say, "the cat is alive, but teh table isn't."
It is when you get to this point we are now at, the border to building "life" from "non-life" that things get hazy. But eventually, where we draw the line between something that is alive and something that is not will have vast ethical implications. Just like the "when is a fetus alive" or "is this computer/animal conscious" questions.
So that is why I went of about the poster's sloppy, cavalier use of the phrase "definition of life". In the scientific context (which I hope every one is discussing this in), that phrase has no meaning without further explaination.
Basically, there is too many three line posts around here trying to comment on something I don't think anyone really understands.
They simulated the conditions of preprehistoric earth... volcanoes... lightning... they created a bacteria that would absorb "food" but it would not procreate. So by the definition of life it was not alive.
There were no volcanoes in Miller's experiment, only electric arcs (lightning).
He most certainly did not create a bacteria!
And as for this alledged bacteria, what "definition of life" are you applying. While I agree that a creature such as you describe is not alive, I am amazed at how you banty about the phrase "definition of life", like we have this all figured out already.
It is uninformed, incorrect posts such as these that threaten to make the internet practically useless as a learning tool. I can only pity the poor student who searches for information about this article and ends up reading this mostly ignorant discussion.
Hmmm...that was a little harsh, but i just don't see why people bother posting if they know nothing about what they are talking about.
Okay, i'll stop now, really.
I read somewhere once, that a group of scientists had built a tank of gasses that were similar to earth when life supposedly evolved.. according to darwin's notes.. and they did get amino acids to form.. it was interesting, but I probably got the details somewhat wrong since I think it's been 6 years since I read it.. does anyone know what it is i'm referring to? who did it, where it was done?
You are refering to Stanley Miller's experiment where he tried to create the compounds found in living things from a mixture of gases hypothesized to approximate conditions on Earth way back when.
I am quite sure that Miller was not working from Darwin's notes, however. The mixture of gases Miller used came from much more modern sources.
BTW, Miller was mildly sucessful, creating several interesting things in his apparatus. However these compunds were still far to simple and lacked the stereochemical chemical properties found in living things.
Question: if spice is needed for space travel, how did we get to Arakis in the first place?
If you check out the relevant entries in The Dune Encylopedia you will find the answer to your question. Specifically, it is possible to travel as the Guild Navigators do without the spice, but it is very dangerous and requires computers which are not available in the Dune world. Thus, Arrakis and the spice were found by travelling as above, and they haven't gone back since.
Linux doesn't have the right tools and support yet.
This isn't quite true. Check out the Linux Journal story here about using Linux in the graphic arts industry.
While Linux isn't a comprehensive solution in this area yet, it isn't that far off either.
Why not use: Save page with images, option like in Opera
Netscape ain't got that. Does Mozilla? And don't say Opera, 'cause I don't do Windows.
-HTML to Text/PostScript Translation? Wouldn't this really be better as a separate program? How about saving using HTML? Simpler, eh?
I actually use these features quite often. Saving in html often results in missing images and such. Saving as Postscript preserves these things.
And it can't be done (easily) with a separate program that converts HTML to ps. Because the html is messed up as explained above.
Let me tell you about my travails with Xig and GLX. Our research group just bought Xi's ~$300 package that promises to allow us to run on an SGI, display on Linux. (Which I couldn't get XFree to do). Well, imagine our surprise when we fire up this expensive boondoggle, and find that we are getting the same error!
Needless to say, I fired off a pretty scathing email to their tech support, to which I got a "we are forwarding this to our head programmer." Somewhere along the way, his reply got lost, but when I finally got it, it was basically a very techincal, "It is the application's fault for not doing OpenGL right."
Well, this maybe true, and I am tracking it down. But I have my doubts about this explaination. It is too convienent... It is like they know I don't have time to fiddle with this...
BTW, I promise to post a nice little ditty about Xig if this all eventually turns out to be the application's fault. But ofr now, I am pissed.
Sure, I hear/use it all of the time. It is not a geek thing per se, but a sci-fi thing. Not all geeks are sci-fi fans, and not all sci-fi fans have read Stranger in a Strange Land, hence, the paucity of grok usage in your vicinity.
You grok?
Did anyone else think of Red Mars and start to worry about the idea of a Space Elevator? At least when a rocket explodes or a satellite orbit decays, it only ruins a small chunk of real estate.
Sure, it would be cool... but you won't catch me moving to the equator.
I think this wouldn't be a problem if you made the elevator from "bucky-tubes." It would be very light, and probably would just burn-up/float away before any real damage could be done.
I believe that the random number/thermal noise thingy you are alluding too is supposed to be part of the new chipset, not the new processor.
As a theoretical chemist, I must object. The interaction of two molecules is a consequence of electrostatics and the quantum mechanical properties of the electron (e.g., exchange and correlation, etc.)
To call these complex interaction "tactile" (while infinitely better than calling them optical) is just plain wrong.
As far as the hardware vs. software issue, I don't think you can apply those paradigms here. The protiens a piece of DNA codes for is a function of structure, and the actual enzyme is far more complex than the protien encoded for. For example, once assembled, a protien may go through several chemical changes before it becomes "activated" (e.g., picking up metal ions or other chemical moieties). So one could say that the protien has a program too.
Since one can call anything in a cell hardware or software to one degree or another, I don't think these analogies help to elucidate anything biological or physical in this case.
I think that the IBM POWER3 might be what you are looking for. You can take a look here.
The example I read said something about a bad famine causing a population to not grow as tall during that generation - but that subsequent generations also didn't get as tall as before the famine, but were heading that way.
Could it also be that regular old natural selection is at work here? People who "wasted" scarce resources growing "needlessly" tall died out, while those who had a predisposition to shortness survived.
Cook the gene pool under said conditions and cool. The population is now shorter, obstensibly due to malnutrition.
But wait a bit longer, and see that new generations are getting taller now that the selective pressure is removed.
Phenomena explained, using only standard evolutionary/genetic theory, and by Occam's Razor is a better explaination.
Now I am not saying that this methylation thingy is wrong. But it is not necessary to explain the phenomena you cited.
BTW, I am not a biologist, by I am a chemist, and I have done a little work studying methylation of DNA, specifically as a way to treat cancer.
I was going to moderate this discussion, but this is too ripe to pass up.
...the macOS is so advanced that the GUI is equally as low-level as the CLI...
This logically must be false. Everything you do in a GUI is some "metaphor" for some "archaic CLI" command. E.g. Lasso & drag to Trash = rm *.foo
So what would the equivalent GUI metaphor be for:
list=`find . -name "*.c"`
for i in `grep junk $list`
do
mv $i `echo $i | sed 's/c/junkc/'`
done
Now that might not be the prettiest piece of shell-script, but there is no way to do something like that with only a mouse and some icons!
If they win, I'm totally going after Wizards of the Coast ;)
If they win Wizards of the Coast won't have any money left for you to get.
From the article:
Court papers said Nintendo, along with U.S. distributor Wizards of the Coast....
I am no expert on all of this, but i am a chemist (theoretical, no inorganic).
Copper atoms are heavier than aluminum atoms...
it [gold] diffuses like lightning...
Gold is even heavier than copper, and therefore should diffuse less and be less suseptible to electromigration. So while what you say may indeed be true, I question you explainations of these phenomena...
Check out this O'Reilly book. There are a few good essays in there about software engineering, in general and specifically dealing with open source. Like "Software Engineering" by Paul Vixie. Hope this helps.
Actually, I *believe* you can have 3-4 IDE controllers on a single mobo. Most only have 2 for economic reasons, and the bios only controls the 2 on the mobo. There are adapter cards that can be plugged into the motherboard, which may have seperate bios setups (like SCSI), I'm not sure.
I believe you are correct. As a matter of fact, I would bet a chunk of pretty polly that the number of IDE channels allowed has nothing to do with the mobo or the BIOS. It is merely a function of how many IDE channels are on the mobo and how many are on your "additional" controller.
Of course having more than one "extra" controller in a box might be a bit tricky...
The Software RAID documentation says that each hard disk should be on a separate IDE cable and that RAID5 requires at least 3 hard drives
Yes.