Since the FBI can investigate anyone - without a warrant - and with a built-in gag order, you'll never know the answer to that question. And it is against the law for/. to tell you.
Researchers at MIT were able to have a person manipulate a dot on a CRT (up/down/left/right) back in the 80's, using nothing more than a helmet-like device over the person's head.
It is not necessary to understand the brain in order to recognize and respond to repeatable patterns. The biggest impediment to this type of research has long been the speed of pattern recognition -- brain waves are quite complex.
It sounds like this company has resolved that somewhat by focusing in on a smaller set of signals more deeply integrated in the process.
Yes, it is possible to get the disease from eating "well-cooked portions of the regular meat". One of the problems is that the stun guns used in the industry have been known to blow brain matter well into the animal. If this gets on 'the regular meat', it's just as infected as eating the spinal cord.
Another problem is that the US uses mechanical picking devices to remove the last meat from the spine, rather than (prion dissolving) solvents used in other countries. The potential for contamination there is pretty evident, although mostly confined to 'speciality meats'.
Good cuts of steak are your best bet -- but are by no means a guarantee of anything.
Oh, PUHLEEEZE. Not more lame conspiracy theories. Heck, maybe the lander is just out in AZ somewhere, eh?
If you REALLY believe that the US govt could maintain a fiction on such a scale, without word ever leaking, then my posting this is probably a waste of typing.
If you want access to the raw data streams, file a FOIA request. Or go build a 'scope and listen to them for yourself. You can be _pretty_ sure the latter signals aren't doctored. Unless, of course, all this 'data' was simply pre-programmed before launch, right?
I knew the/. community ranged across the entire bell curve, but this is a new low, even for here.
That number comes from their 6,000 companies who have yet to wise up and dump the SCO Unix product. The "agreement" they have with those companies is the arm-bending letter they sent them recently, which was covered here earlier.
But the problem is that *all* of those questions are moot in the world of laptops and VPNs. It is MUCH harder to defend against virii (et alia) from the inside of the network.
And who is going to tell the CEO that he can't bring his laptop (that his kid infected twelve ways from Sunday last night) into the office? Or that he can't *send*.vbs,.exe, et alia attachments? (Including to other employees, obviously.)
Likewise, VPNs are a *wonderful* tool. The convenience of being able to transparently access corporate resources remotely is unbeatable. And a lot of VPN software even prevents personal internet connections while the VPN is active, to prevent backdoor routing into the corporate network.
If the client computer is already infected, however, none of that amounts to a hill of beans. It becomes exactly the same scenario as taking the laptop into the office, only more dangerous -- the home VPN machine may have a full-time 'net connection, and has a better chance of being infected already.
In short, if you really don't know the answers to your questions, you probably haven't supported a lot of senior management types.
There's an easy answer to that -- don't let them know how to get to root. Most of the desktop utilities simply pop-up a password box in this situation. Don't teach the idiots that "root" is a user name, nor about the "su" command, and you will not have this problem.
Or, make it so you have to have a command line override (documented only in the man page) in order to start X as root. The only people who will read the man page are those capable of handling it - a very self-discriminating setup.
I'm hardly an expert on the NRA's position on anything, not ever having been a member (despite many years of active gun ownership).
However, it's worth noting that possession of a silencer is only legal under the same provisions as ownership of fully automatic weapons. One must possess the appropriate permit from BATF, acquisition of which requires that you sign your rights away entirely. And pay the (steep) fee, of course....
Homemade silencers are mostly a myth, and of course, possession of even those without an appropriate license is a felony offense.
>>And if the mugger KNOWS you don't have a gun, he's more likely to mug you in the first place, regardless of the outcome.
>Surely he is more likely to just shoot you in the back of the head and take your gun. After all, then he has 2 guns, one of which is 'clean'.
My comment was directed at a future in which only criminals had guns (hence the "KNOWS you _don't_ part). However, if you're talking about modern day, you're still wrong. Guns are noisy and attract attention. Assuming he is in a position to shoot you in the back of the head without you noticing, he's just as easily positioned to simply take the gun/money/whatever. If witnesses are a problem, a couple whacks over the head with the barrel still make less noise than discharging it.
Still, all that said, there are those who do exactly that. Look at the carjacking 'fad', for example.
Excellent commentary, although frankly it's not that hard to make weapons that fire more powerful shells (accuracy is another issue;).
And if the mugger KNOWS you don't have a gun, he's more likely to mug you in the first place, regardless of the outcome.
There are currently something like 7 weapons in circulation for every man, woman and child in the US. Reloading benches are readily available, and gunpowder is not that hard to make.
Everyone who believes that gun control is a realistic proposition in this country should be gathered together in a place where gun control is in effect. You know, like Washington, DC - home of the toughest handgun laws in the country, and also home of the highest death-by-handgun rate anywhere....
That's _absolutely_ incorrect. One simply sues the corporation via the registered agent for that corporation - which must be done in the locality in which the corporation is registered.
I'm not sure what rights Utah gives to non-residents, although I doubt there are any restrictions in that regard -- other than having to travel (presumably to Utah) to file.
...this question even got asked. Ok, if you *need* to share the same device across machine, something like the network block device can be a real help.
If all you're worried about is disk failures, mirror each disk locally. Disks are cheap, and real operating systems don't have any trouble with software mirroring.
Why would you want to make all of your machines suddenly non-functional, just because one of them lost a network card? Or the switch failed? Or....
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the moderators on this one. Insightful?!? Please. Sure, and as useful as holding your hand over the burst pipe so it won't leak.
Someone else suggested the response was reasoned discourse (like/. is capable of that;), and I would have to agree. The ignorant comments ARE going to appear, regardless. You can either offset them with insight, or simply ignore the story.
A comment that says "don't post comments" is about as useful as snot on a doorknob.
That's an excellent point. I prefer the best solution for the problem - is it my fault that I rarely find a problem where the best solution is M$?
I'm a strong advocate of open source platforms, yet I have the factual knowledge to back up my statements. So where does that leave me in his rant?
It's bad enough that (in certain environments) anyone who dares say "Linux" (let alone repeat it) is branded a zealot. To foster this perception through either overt ignorance or personal agenda, as this writer has done, is simply reprehensible.
On the other hand, it's a tactic SCO will likely admire greatly.
> However, if I ever DO plan on putting 50,000 files > in a directory and then reading all of them on a > frequent basis, I'll be sure to choose SCSI.:-)
Ugh! I would no more do my taxes with a pencil than I would write a check, or balance my checkbook. I have better things to do with my time than dig out last year's forms, copy numbers and do basic math, thanks.
This despite the fact that I am one who once regularly balanced the checkbook in my head, without a calculator, or need for a pencil and paper.
The (tax-deductible) $30 is well worth the time savings in copying and e-filing alone. Yes, taxes are simple -- I'll fully agree with that. They move from simple to trivial with a decent tax program - why not spend that time doing something interesting, instead?
And with the type of people you just describe, you don't think there are _any_ of them out there who will capture your (now verified) address and sell it to someone else???
And yes, there are people who will sell any kind of trash at all as a 'verified' list, just as there are in any type of business. This does not imply that verified addressess are less valuable as a result - if that were so, there would be no cachet to these addressess, and no reason for the bottom feeders to lie about them in the first place.
If you're _REALLY_ looking for proof, might I suggest e.g. Google. This is a well documented phenonemon, and there is no reason/. should do your homework for you.
ANI - Automatic Number Identification - is a service which the phone company offers to businesses. Most businesses with toll-free or 900- numbers make use of it.
HOWEVER, it does *not* have to be tied to a 8xx or 900 prefix in order to function. TPC _always_ knowns the number from which you called (*67 notwithstanding), and will give or not give the customer that number based solely on how much money the customer is paying.
If you provided content on your website, and provided and e-mail address (presumably for people with questions;), then the message was obviously solicited.
Beyond that is a dark grey area into which I'm not willing to wade without my abestos space suit.;)
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the one before it is poorly phrased, at best. NO bank in my experience "trusts the employees not to take the money". In fact, the basic premise is that employees *will* take the money, if given half a chance. This is why, for example, IT staff at most banks are required to take 1/2 (or more) of their vacation in a single chunk - so that any schemes they have setup which require their input can be detected.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno - having a physical nickel and having the intelligence to rub two of them together are _completely_ separate issues. :-(
So what? So am I! Anyone with the intelligence to rub two nickles together should be, by now....
I had a friend who canceled his service for the exact same reason. Sounds great, right up until they throttle you...
Since the FBI can investigate anyone - without a warrant - and with a built-in gag order, you'll never know the answer to that question. And it is against the law for /. to tell you.
Is this a great country, or what?
Researchers at MIT were able to have a person manipulate a dot on a CRT (up/down/left/right) back in the 80's, using nothing more than a helmet-like device over the person's head.
It is not necessary to understand the brain in order to recognize and respond to repeatable patterns. The biggest impediment to this type of research has long been the speed of pattern recognition -- brain waves are quite complex.
It sounds like this company has resolved that somewhat by focusing in on a smaller set of signals more deeply integrated in the process.
Yes, it is possible to get the disease from eating "well-cooked portions of the regular meat". One of the problems is that the stun guns used in the industry have been known to blow brain matter well into the animal. If this gets on 'the regular meat', it's just as infected as eating the spinal cord.
Another problem is that the US uses mechanical picking devices to remove the last meat from the spine, rather than (prion dissolving) solvents used in other countries. The potential for contamination there is pretty evident, although mostly confined to 'speciality meats'.
Good cuts of steak are your best bet -- but are by no means a guarantee of anything.
Hmmmm. I'm torn between "d***, I wish I'd thought of that" and "shhhh - don't feed the trolls". ;)
Oh, PUHLEEEZE. Not more lame conspiracy theories. Heck, maybe the lander is just out in AZ somewhere, eh?
/. community ranged across the entire bell curve, but this is a new low, even for here.
If you REALLY believe that the US govt could maintain a fiction on such a scale, without word ever leaking, then my posting this is probably a waste of typing.
If you want access to the raw data streams, file a FOIA request. Or go build a 'scope and listen to them for yourself. You can be _pretty_ sure the latter signals aren't doctored. Unless, of course, all this 'data' was simply pre-programmed before launch, right?
I knew the
That number comes from their 6,000 companies who have yet to wise up and dump the SCO Unix product. The "agreement" they have with those companies is the arm-bending letter they sent them recently, which was covered here earlier.
But the problem is that *all* of those questions are moot in the world of laptops and VPNs. It is MUCH harder to defend against virii (et alia) from the inside of the network.
.vbs, .exe, et alia attachments? (Including to other employees, obviously.)
And who is going to tell the CEO that he can't bring his laptop (that his kid infected twelve ways from Sunday last night) into the office? Or that he can't *send*
Likewise, VPNs are a *wonderful* tool. The convenience of being able to transparently access corporate resources remotely is unbeatable. And a lot of VPN software even prevents personal internet connections while the VPN is active, to prevent backdoor routing into the corporate network.
If the client computer is already infected, however, none of that amounts to a hill of beans. It becomes exactly the same scenario as taking the laptop into the office, only more dangerous -- the home VPN machine may have a full-time 'net connection, and has a better chance of being infected already.
In short, if you really don't know the answers to your questions, you probably haven't supported a lot of senior management types.
And this is mod'd +5, Insightfult? *HE* didn't enable those legions of 12-year olds -- the people who wrote the code did that.
As others have said, there *are* solutions to those problems, and it is not to the company's credit that these issues were not addressed up front.
There's an easy answer to that -- don't let them know how to get to root. Most of the desktop utilities simply pop-up a password box in this situation. Don't teach the idiots that "root" is a user name, nor about the "su" command, and you will not have this problem.
Or, make it so you have to have a command line override (documented only in the man page) in order to start X as root. The only people who will read the man page are those capable of handling it - a very self-discriminating setup.
I'm hardly an expert on the NRA's position on anything, not ever having been a member (despite many years of active gun ownership).
However, it's worth noting that possession of a silencer is only legal under the same provisions as ownership of fully automatic weapons. One must possess the appropriate permit from BATF, acquisition of which requires that you sign your rights away entirely. And pay the (steep) fee, of course....
Homemade silencers are mostly a myth, and of course, possession of even those without an appropriate license is a felony offense.
>>And if the mugger KNOWS you don't have a gun, he's more likely to mug you in the first place, regardless of the outcome.
>Surely he is more likely to just shoot you in the back of the head and take your gun. After all, then he has 2 guns, one of which is 'clean'.
My comment was directed at a future in which only criminals had guns (hence the "KNOWS you _don't_ part). However, if you're talking about modern day, you're still wrong. Guns are noisy and attract attention. Assuming he is in a position to shoot you in the back of the head without you noticing, he's just as easily positioned to simply take the gun/money/whatever. If witnesses are a problem, a couple whacks over the head with the barrel still make less noise than discharging it.
Still, all that said, there are those who do exactly that. Look at the carjacking 'fad', for example.
Excellent commentary, although frankly it's not that hard to make weapons that fire more powerful shells (accuracy is another issue ;).
And if the mugger KNOWS you don't have a gun, he's more likely to mug you in the first place, regardless of the outcome.
There are currently something like 7 weapons in circulation for every man, woman and child in the US. Reloading benches are readily available, and gunpowder is not that hard to make.
Everyone who believes that gun control is a realistic proposition in this country should be gathered together in a place where gun control is in effect. You know, like Washington, DC - home of the toughest handgun laws in the country, and also home of the highest death-by-handgun rate anywhere....
That's _absolutely_ incorrect. One simply sues the corporation via the registered agent for that corporation - which must be done in the locality in which the corporation is registered.
I'm not sure what rights Utah gives to non-residents, although I doubt there are any restrictions in that regard -- other than having to travel (presumably to Utah) to file.
...this question even got asked. Ok, if you *need* to share the same device across machine, something like the network block device can be a real help.
....
If all you're worried about is disk failures, mirror each disk locally. Disks are cheap, and real operating systems don't have any trouble with software mirroring.
Why would you want to make all of your machines suddenly non-functional, just because one of them lost a network card? Or the switch failed? Or
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with the moderators on this one. Insightful?!? Please. Sure, and as useful as holding your hand over the burst pipe so it won't leak.
/. is capable of that ;), and I would have to agree. The ignorant comments ARE going to appear, regardless. You can either offset them with insight, or simply ignore the story.
Someone else suggested the response was reasoned discourse (like
A comment that says "don't post comments" is about as useful as snot on a doorknob.
That's an excellent point. I prefer the best solution for the problem - is it my fault that I rarely find a problem where the best solution is M$?
I'm a strong advocate of open source platforms, yet I have the factual knowledge to back up my statements. So where does that leave me in his rant?
It's bad enough that (in certain environments) anyone who dares say "Linux" (let alone repeat it) is branded a zealot. To foster this perception through either overt ignorance or personal agenda, as this writer has done, is simply reprehensible.
On the other hand, it's a tactic SCO will likely admire greatly.
> However, if I ever DO plan on putting 50,000 files :-)
> in a directory and then reading all of them on a
> frequent basis, I'll be sure to choose SCSI.
As long as you plan on doing it in 2001.
Ugh! I would no more do my taxes with a pencil than I would write a check, or balance my checkbook. I have better things to do with my time than dig out last year's forms, copy numbers and do basic math, thanks.
This despite the fact that I am one who once regularly balanced the checkbook in my head, without a calculator, or need for a pencil and paper.
The (tax-deductible) $30 is well worth the time savings in copying and e-filing alone. Yes, taxes are simple -- I'll fully agree with that. They move from simple to trivial with a decent tax program - why not spend that time doing something interesting, instead?
And with the type of people you just describe, you don't think there are _any_ of them out there who will capture your (now verified) address and sell it to someone else???
/. should do your homework for you.
And yes, there are people who will sell any kind of trash at all as a 'verified' list, just as there are in any type of business. This does not imply that verified addressess are less valuable as a result - if that were so, there would be no cachet to these addressess, and no reason for the bottom feeders to lie about them in the first place.
If you're _REALLY_ looking for proof, might I suggest e.g. Google. This is a well documented phenonemon, and there is no reason
ANI - Automatic Number Identification - is a service which the phone company offers to businesses. Most businesses with toll-free or 900- numbers make use of it.
HOWEVER, it does *not* have to be tied to a 8xx or 900 prefix in order to function. TPC _always_ knowns the number from which you called (*67 notwithstanding), and will give or not give the customer that number based solely on how much money the customer is paying.
If you provided content on your website, and provided and e-mail address (presumably for people with questions ;), then the message was obviously solicited.
;)
Beyond that is a dark grey area into which I'm not willing to wade without my abestos space suit.
I'll agree with your last sentence, but the one before it is poorly phrased, at best. NO bank in my experience "trusts the employees not to take the money". In fact, the basic premise is that employees *will* take the money, if given half a chance. This is why, for example, IT staff at most banks are required to take 1/2 (or more) of their vacation in a single chunk - so that any schemes they have setup which require their input can be detected.