The article says the wave would pass undisturbed through the island, so the result is that for the people behind teh island it would be as if it wasn't there at all.
This site offers visitors an exciting, engaging interactive experience that takes advantage of the capabilities available through the most commonly used Web browsers. If you're seeing this message, you may be using a web browser that has since been updated and may want to consider obtaining the latest version.
No, NASA, there is a problem with your browser check. Try looking at the "gecko" version instead of trying to guess at the many names a gecko based browser may have. I'm sure you have similar problems with webkit browsers as well.
That was the first game that I pirated... after I bought it.
The copy protection was so messed up that the only way I could get a copy of the game that was reliable was a cracked copy. But I didn't want a pirated diskette, so I had the cracked copy written over the original gold-labelled floppy.
Oh yes, it's definitely limited to a subset of applications on any platform. Windows is just particularly hard because things like COM are so pervasive.
Again, that doesn't mean it's useless. It does seem to nail executable code injection attacks pretty effectively.
If everyone in the world had a good spam filter, and/or adblock, do you really think there would be annoying ads or spam any more?
If you assume a false statement, you can prove anything. This argument has been used to ridicule active anti-spam efforts for over 15 years now, and it's no more likely now than when the "Green Card" ads were first run.
That's true, but as far as I can see, there is no reason that the same concept couldn't be applied to dynamic linking for most programs. The exception being the programs that construct library names at run-time, what should amount to 1 or 2 executables at an entire system.
That exception includes every program that uses or provides a plugin architecture. On Windows, that includes Exchange, IIS, and every program that uses COM and ActiveX, like Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer.
And here's another site using Vibrant's in-text ads, with the "disable" tab turned off.
Vibrant's in-text ads are the most annoying online advertising scheme since X-10. But bad as they are you used to be able to turn them off... now increasingly often the "disable" tab doesn't show up when you try to do that. Sites that use this technology should not be supported by Slashdot eyeballs any more than spammers should. And just because you can use adblock to hide them doesn't excuse this abusive advertising trick... ignoring it because adblock works is like ignoring spam because you have a good spam filter: we know where that leads.
if my exchange server is compromised and starts to serve webpages by binding to a port other than port 25, this method would catch it and kill the process in its tracks.
On the other hand, if your exchange server is compromised and starts shipping spam it won't do a damn thing to stop it. And if your exchange server is compromised and loads a DLL using its normal API for loading modules, then it can do anything that module will attack.
You application, which normally never spawns a procses while in a certain function, will be killed as soon as it attempts to execute because it violates the model that was created at compile time.
It only tracks system calls, not functions (that would have insane levels of overhead), and it cant even see what the interpreter thinks of as functions. Any time an interpreter is involved, the call graph will be "bushy" because all possible operations that the interpreter supports will be legal as the "next step" from each step in the interpreter loop.
it is designed to stop "cross zone" attacks, but it depends on the application developer's approach. i.e. ie7 would not benefit from this trick, but ie8 would (each zone is spawned in a new thread)
I think you're confusing cross zone attacks (attacks on the security zone model in Windows) with cross-site attacks.
this is an os-agnostic approach to stopping malware, they just used the linux kernel because its free.
Also, Linux has a formal "system call" interface, so they have a single point of entry with well behaved semantics and known overhead, so they can control the impact of their technique very closely. They can't put this in all Windows call gates, they'll have to pick particular DLLs that they track, and maybe even limit the calls they track (you don't want anything that's doing frequent callbacks to be tracked, for example).
OK, what this is doing is watching for code injection attacks (buffer overflows, stack smashing, etcetera) by building a model of how each specific application is going to operate, and blocking system calls that the model of the application would never make. It seems like an interesting approach, though it may not be as useful on Windows where there's not such a formal distinction between system calls and other kinds of calls.
It won't do anything about interpreter code injection (eg, SQL injection or shell code injection) or script privilege escalation attacks (eg, ActiveX and other "cross zone" attacks in Internet Explorer), or attacks that involve complete executable code drops.
Still, this is useful and not nearly as dodgy as the article made it sound.
As much battery as you can pack in, even if it makes it a bit thicker, and the battery pack should snap on somewhere near the back so that you can add a third-party "fat pack" battery. If there's any space left, add a slot that can hold a second drive, so you can use it as a laptop replacement when the net's not available, without dragging around a USB dongle. A full sized CF slot for a microdrive would work. But worry about that after you've loaded it down with all the battery you can carry.
That doesn't mean everyone needs access to aerial or satellite photographs that show centimetre-level detail of military institutions. What public interest is served by this?
How else are we supposed to locate the secret alien technology?
This isn't like comparing the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Everett-Wheeler-Graham model, this is like comparing the Copenhagen Interpretation and Scientology. Not only does ID make claims about edge cases that, with further investigation, are found to support the standard model of natural selection, but ID doesn't even serve its original purpose. It isn't even Biblically supported: ID contradicts the fundamentalist reading of Genesis just as systematically as the standard models.
Since we currently can do genetic engineering, and there's some possibility that intelligent life will be discovered as having existed in the past nearby, maybe some civilization nearby visited Earth and, since we can already do it, went ahead and... oops. Can't propose that, and since I can't propose it, can't ever investigate it. Academic crimestop.
Not only can you propose that, but there is active research into the existence of complex extraterrestrial life on Earth (by looking for evidence of life in the interior of meteorite fragments), in the solar system (pretty much every probe sent to Mars and quite a few other places has included experiments looking for evidence of life), and beyond (not just project SETI, but things like research into the possibility of the intelligent origin of pulsars... before we figured out what they were).
If you want to integrate with non-windows machines just use webservies which are fully documented by MS and various other sources since SOAP and http are both standard protocols.
And if you want to integrate with Windows machines, and you're writing code on the non-Windows side, what do you do?
I refuse to pay attention to any Anti-trust investigations into MS unless Apple is put to the same scrutiny.
Microsoft: you can see the code that implements these dusty proprietary protocols if you sign an NDA.
Apple: We use these standard protocols, and here's a free implementation of this standard protocol that we happen to be the first to get to market, and it builds on Linux with no changes, and here's the source code to our file system and the remaining legacy network protocols we're still using...
what does MS do that Apple doesn't do when it comes to making your OS the dominate platform?
Let's see, Apple doesn't require people who try to interoperate with them to implement extensions to standard protocols that they don't document, and they don't give their own software privileged access to secret kernel APIs... in fact they give away the source to most of them... even most of the ones that they don't need to.
Lord knows Apple has problems - the way they're handling the iPhone is made of frustration - but compared to Microsoft they're angels.
Where you can at least sue when you aren't paid for overtime. Some states have much friendlier labor than Cali.
You want to go and correct this fella about that little detail? To be precise, from TFA:
For the industry, which apparently has sought the change for several years, the issue is not so clear cut. California, they note, is the only state to require hourly tracking of computer professionals.
DRM is not an obstacle to freedom. All it is, is a PITA and a disingenuous way to lock in people who don't have the code-fu to put the music
Whether that's true or not, that's got nothing to do with the fact that this allegedly DRM-free service is not actually DRM-free. It doesn't matter whether you consider DRM an obstacle, an annoyance, a fad, or a communist plot. Their service includes a technical mechanism to control the playback of the music by the consumer, and that is what "digital rights management" is all about.
Funny, I was using iTunes with my flash-based music player three years before the iPod Shuffle came out.
What makes it hard to use iTunes with non-iPods is that most non-iPods don't support AAC, the MP4 audio codec that was supposed to replace MP3. Instead they support WMA, because Microsoft has been pushing their proprietary format over the open one that Apple adopted.
and iPod users were locked into iTunes
Most of my tracks aren't from the iTunes [Music] Store.
It was only after public opinion started to turn against DRM that Apple insisted it had never been in favour.
Actually, it's you who are rewriting history here.
Steve Jobs, in an interview with Rolling Stone when the iTunes Store opened, said that they had tried to talk the labels out of DRM. He said that they did not believe it was possible to protect digital content, but the labels required DRM before they would sign a contract with Apple.
And the DRM in iTunes has never been as strong as Windows Media Player. iTunes doesn't even TRY and close the "digital hole", which Windows Media player has done (or tried to do) since WMP 9.1. (the version shipped with XP) added kernel drivers to prevent intercepting the audio stream before the A/D converter. A good many of the driver problems in Vista are due to the new driver model that it uses that keeps protected audio streams encrypted inside the kernel to keep people from being able to bypass this protection.
Slashdot Mirror
Fans can be replaced. I have replaced the fans on video cards on a number of occasions.
The article says the wave would pass undisturbed through the island, so the result is that for the people behind teh island it would be as if it wasn't there at all.
No, NASA, there is a problem with your browser check. Try looking at the "gecko" version instead of trying to guess at the many names a gecko based browser may have. I'm sure you have similar problems with webkit browsers as well.
That was the first game that I pirated... after I bought it.
The copy protection was so messed up that the only way I could get a copy of the game that was reliable was a cracked copy. But I didn't want a pirated diskette, so I had the cracked copy written over the original gold-labelled floppy.
Oh yes, it's definitely limited to a subset of applications on any platform. Windows is just particularly hard because things like COM are so pervasive.
Again, that doesn't mean it's useless. It does seem to nail executable code injection attacks pretty effectively.
Your analogy is like instant coffee.
Any piece of technology will advance until it has an MP3 player function.
And can send email, and run Linux.
If everyone in the world had a good spam filter, and/or adblock, do you really think there would be annoying ads or spam any more?
If you assume a false statement, you can prove anything. This argument has been used to ridicule active anti-spam efforts for over 15 years now, and it's no more likely now than when the "Green Card" ads were first run.
That's true, but as far as I can see, there is no reason that the same concept couldn't be applied to dynamic linking for most programs. The exception being the programs that construct library names at run-time, what should amount to 1 or 2 executables at an entire system.
That exception includes every program that uses or provides a plugin architecture. On Windows, that includes Exchange, IIS, and every program that uses COM and ActiveX, like Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer.
And here's another site using Vibrant's in-text ads, with the "disable" tab turned off.
Vibrant's in-text ads are the most annoying online advertising scheme since X-10. But bad as they are you used to be able to turn them off... now increasingly often the "disable" tab doesn't show up when you try to do that. Sites that use this technology should not be supported by Slashdot eyeballs any more than spammers should. And just because you can use adblock to hide them doesn't excuse this abusive advertising trick... ignoring it because adblock works is like ignoring spam because you have a good spam filter: we know where that leads.
What does this have to do with Apple?
if my exchange server is compromised and starts to serve webpages by binding to a port other than port 25, this method would catch it and kill the process in its tracks.
On the other hand, if your exchange server is compromised and starts shipping spam it won't do a damn thing to stop it. And if your exchange server is compromised and loads a DLL using its normal API for loading modules, then it can do anything that module will attack.
You application, which normally never spawns a procses while in a certain function, will be killed as soon as it attempts to execute because it violates the model that was created at compile time.
It only tracks system calls, not functions (that would have insane levels of overhead), and it cant even see what the interpreter thinks of as functions. Any time an interpreter is involved, the call graph will be "bushy" because all possible operations that the interpreter supports will be legal as the "next step" from each step in the interpreter loop.
it is designed to stop "cross zone" attacks, but it depends on the application developer's approach. i.e. ie7 would not benefit from this trick, but ie8 would (each zone is spawned in a new thread)
I think you're confusing cross zone attacks (attacks on the security zone model in Windows) with cross-site attacks.
this is an os-agnostic approach to stopping malware, they just used the linux kernel because its free.
Also, Linux has a formal "system call" interface, so they have a single point of entry with well behaved semantics and known overhead, so they can control the impact of their technique very closely. They can't put this in all Windows call gates, they'll have to pick particular DLLs that they track, and maybe even limit the calls they track (you don't want anything that's doing frequent callbacks to be tracked, for example).
OK, what this is doing is watching for code injection attacks (buffer overflows, stack smashing, etcetera) by building a model of how each specific application is going to operate, and blocking system calls that the model of the application would never make. It seems like an interesting approach, though it may not be as useful on Windows where there's not such a formal distinction between system calls and other kinds of calls.
It won't do anything about interpreter code injection (eg, SQL injection or shell code injection) or script privilege escalation attacks (eg, ActiveX and other "cross zone" attacks in Internet Explorer), or attacks that involve complete executable code drops.
Still, this is useful and not nearly as dodgy as the article made it sound.
As much battery as you can pack in, even if it makes it a bit thicker, and the battery pack should snap on somewhere near the back so that you can add a third-party "fat pack" battery. If there's any space left, add a slot that can hold a second drive, so you can use it as a laptop replacement when the net's not available, without dragging around a USB dongle. A full sized CF slot for a microdrive would work. But worry about that after you've loaded it down with all the battery you can carry.
Yet another website that uses in-frame popups when you just mouse over a word, and refuses to disable them.
This kind of annoyvertising reminds me of X10.com's popups, and shouldn't be tolerated.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:http://www.xconomy.com/national/2008/09/26/boston-unblurred-debunking-the-google-maps-censorship-myth/
That doesn't mean everyone needs access to aerial or satellite photographs that show centimetre-level detail of military institutions. What public interest is served by this?
How else are we supposed to locate the secret alien technology?
This isn't like comparing the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Everett-Wheeler-Graham model, this is like comparing the Copenhagen Interpretation and Scientology. Not only does ID make claims about edge cases that, with further investigation, are found to support the standard model of natural selection, but ID doesn't even serve its original purpose. It isn't even Biblically supported: ID contradicts the fundamentalist reading of Genesis just as systematically as the standard models.
Since we currently can do genetic engineering, and there's some possibility that intelligent life will be discovered as having existed in the past nearby, maybe some civilization nearby visited Earth and, since we can already do it, went ahead and... oops. Can't propose that, and since I can't propose it, can't ever investigate it. Academic crimestop.
Not only can you propose that, but there is active research into the existence of complex extraterrestrial life on Earth (by looking for evidence of life in the interior of meteorite fragments), in the solar system (pretty much every probe sent to Mars and quite a few other places has included experiments looking for evidence of life), and beyond (not just project SETI, but things like research into the possibility of the intelligent origin of pulsars... before we figured out what they were).
If you want to integrate with non-windows machines just use webservies which are fully documented by MS and various other sources since SOAP and http are both standard protocols.
And if you want to integrate with Windows machines, and you're writing code on the non-Windows side, what do you do?
I refuse to pay attention to any Anti-trust investigations into MS unless Apple is put to the same scrutiny.
Microsoft: you can see the code that implements these dusty proprietary protocols if you sign an NDA.
Apple: We use these standard protocols, and here's a free implementation of this standard protocol that we happen to be the first to get to market, and it builds on Linux with no changes, and here's the source code to our file system and the remaining legacy network protocols we're still using...
what does MS do that Apple doesn't do when it comes to making your OS the dominate platform?
Let's see, Apple doesn't require people who try to interoperate with them to implement extensions to standard protocols that they don't document, and they don't give their own software privileged access to secret kernel APIs... in fact they give away the source to most of them... even most of the ones that they don't need to.
Lord knows Apple has problems - the way they're handling the iPhone is made of frustration - but compared to Microsoft they're angels.
Where you can at least sue when you aren't paid for overtime. Some states have much friendlier labor than Cali.
You want to go and correct this fella about that little detail? To be precise, from TFA:
...but, just quit and get a job in another state.
Where they still won't get guaranteed overtime?
Yay! DRM free! I think half of slashdot would have an orgasm if this were not linked to ads or myspace.
Well, maybe, but only if it was actually DRM-free, because it isn't.
DRM is not an obstacle to freedom. All it is, is a PITA and a disingenuous way to lock in people who don't have the code-fu to put the music
Whether that's true or not, that's got nothing to do with the fact that this allegedly DRM-free service is not actually DRM-free. It doesn't matter whether you consider DRM an obstacle, an annoyance, a fad, or a communist plot. Their service includes a technical mechanism to control the playback of the music by the consumer, and that is what "digital rights management" is all about.
It meant iTunes users were locked into iPods
Funny, I was using iTunes with my flash-based music player three years before the iPod Shuffle came out.
What makes it hard to use iTunes with non-iPods is that most non-iPods don't support AAC, the MP4 audio codec that was supposed to replace MP3. Instead they support WMA, because Microsoft has been pushing their proprietary format over the open one that Apple adopted.
and iPod users were locked into iTunes
Most of my tracks aren't from the iTunes [Music] Store.
It was only after public opinion started to turn against DRM that Apple insisted it had never been in favour.
Actually, it's you who are rewriting history here.
Steve Jobs, in an interview with Rolling Stone when the iTunes Store opened, said that they had tried to talk the labels out of DRM. He said that they did not believe it was possible to protect digital content, but the labels required DRM before they would sign a contract with Apple.
And the DRM in iTunes has never been as strong as Windows Media Player. iTunes doesn't even TRY and close the "digital hole", which Windows Media player has done (or tried to do) since WMP 9.1. (the version shipped with XP) added kernel drivers to prevent intercepting the audio stream before the A/D converter. A good many of the driver problems in Vista are due to the new driver model that it uses that keeps protected audio streams encrypted inside the kernel to keep people from being able to bypass this protection.
The same way Stardock considers their software DRM free.
I guess nobody has taken them to court over false advertising yet.