Well, the fix for this would be to allow a countersuit only if the original case is determined to not have had merit. This could be either by judge or jury decision.
>the only way to squeeze as much juice out of your hardware
This used to be the case, but with modern CPU designs, it is very difficult to get the instructions in the right order to allow for out of order execution, keeping multiple pipelines full, etc.
You can do this by hand, but your code won't be very maintainable. In assembly, there is a tradeoff between readability/maintainability and speed of execution. Your better off writing in a high level language and let the compiler mangle your code for you.
Of course, there are some exceptions, but compilers are getting better, not worse.
One of the definitions given for "hack" in the Hacker's dictionary reffers to a "prank" (not necissarily computer related, but usually technical) (that's how I interpreted the deffinition, at least). So why wouldn't a computer prank (altering web sites, denial of service) be called hacks, and a person who performs these hacks be called a Hacker?
Please don't ask him anything about the number 42. Back a few years ago, he used to hang out in alt.fan.douglass.adams, and from what I hear, was driven away by countless theories and psychoanalysis of the meaning behind 42. The point is, there is no meaning for 42. It is just 7 x 6 (although, in the edition of HHGTTG that I first read, there was a misprint... 7 x 8, which I thought was another subtle form of [something, hadn't quiet figured it out yet])
If there were no market for a fully hackable version of boxes such as the I-opener, then why was Netpliance so worried about loosing a bunch of money on the hardware hacks? I think that the market is bigger than these people think.
All you have to do is make sure your boot partition (/boot) is below 2 TB (you do have your 27 TB drive split into more than one partition, don't you? I'd hate to see the fsck's on 27 TB...). Load your vmlinuz image in/boot, and lilo is happy...
BTW, I've tried out your holodeck version 0.15, but the pain simulation was a bit too much. Can you add the ability to adjust the thresholds to your next version? Thanks
The solution I was thinking of for email spam is to bounce all messages that aren't PGP signed. If it is a real person on the other end, he will get the bounce message with instructions on obtaing PGP (or equivilant). Spam mail usually has forged headers, so the bounce will not get back to the spammers, and you'll never see the spam.
Even if the spammers started sending signed mail, it takes a few CPU cycles to generate the signature (assuming the signature includes signing the mail headers -- if it just signs the body, all bets are off). This will have the effect of limiting the number of spams they can send per hour.
Maybe we could come up with some other hash that would be generated from the mail body and headers, that would take time (say, 5 - 10 seconds or so) to generate, which would be required to be appended to the end of the email, otherwise the message would bounce. In this case, it should be developed as a plugin that would work with most of the email clients out there.
Because, according to the definition, one meaning of "hack" is a "prank" or practical joke, performed using technical abilities. Since most acts of cracking a system are (historicaly) done as pranks (defacing a web page, for example), and it requires techinical abilities (even for "script kiddies"), these acts can be called "hacks".
Therefore, a person that performs "hacks" is a "hacker". QED.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the fix for this would be to allow a countersuit only if the original case is determined to not have had merit. This could be either by judge or jury decision.
This used to be the case, but with modern CPU designs, it is very difficult to get the instructions in the right order to allow for out of order execution, keeping multiple pipelines full, etc.
You can do this by hand, but your code won't be very maintainable. In assembly, there is a tradeoff between readability/maintainability and speed of execution. Your better off writing in a high level language and let the compiler mangle your code for you.
Of course, there are some exceptions, but compilers are getting better, not worse.
One of the definitions given for "hack" in the Hacker's dictionary reffers to a "prank" (not necissarily computer related, but usually technical) (that's how I interpreted the deffinition, at least). So why wouldn't a computer prank (altering web sites, denial of service) be called hacks, and a person who performs these hacks be called a Hacker?
Please don't ask him anything about the number 42. Back a few years ago, he used to hang out in alt.fan.douglass.adams, and from what I hear, was driven away by countless theories and psychoanalysis of the meaning behind 42. The point is, there is no meaning for 42. It is just 7 x 6 (although, in the edition of HHGTTG that I first read, there was a misprint... 7 x 8, which I thought was another subtle form of [something, hadn't quiet figured it out yet])
If there were no market for a fully hackable version of boxes such as the I-opener, then why was Netpliance so worried about loosing a bunch of money on the hardware hacks? I think that the market is bigger than these people think.
BTW, I've tried out your holodeck version 0.15, but the pain simulation was a bit too much. Can you add the ability to adjust the thresholds to your next version? Thanks
Even if the spammers started sending signed mail, it takes a few CPU cycles to generate the signature (assuming the signature includes signing the mail headers -- if it just signs the body, all bets are off). This will have the effect of limiting the number of spams they can send per hour.
Maybe we could come up with some other hash that would be generated from the mail body and headers, that would take time (say, 5 - 10 seconds or so) to generate, which would be required to be appended to the end of the email, otherwise the message would bounce. In this case, it should be developed as a plugin that would work with most of the email clients out there.
Because, according to the definition, one meaning of "hack" is a "prank" or practical joke, performed using technical abilities. Since most acts of cracking a system are (historicaly) done as pranks (defacing a web page, for example), and it requires techinical abilities (even for "script kiddies"), these acts can be called "hacks".
Therefore, a person that performs "hacks" is a "hacker". QED.