Near as I can tell, this looks like what he may have done.
Here's the output from nmap:
Starting nmap V. 2.53 by fyodor@insecure.org Host toad.com (140.174.2.1) appears to be up... good. Initiating SYN half-open stealth scan against toad.com (140.174.2.1) ... Interesting ports on toad.com (140.174.2.1): (The 1507 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed) Port State Service 13/tcp open daytime 19/tcp open chargen 21/tcp open ftp 22/tcp open ssh 25/tcp open smtp 53/tcp open domain 79/tcp open finger 111/tcp open sunrpc 515/tcp open printer 540/tcp open uucp 543/tcp open klogin 544/tcp open kshell 742/tcp open netrcs 2000/tcp open callbook 2105/tcp open eklogin 6000/tcp open X11
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 16 seconds
Notice no smtp appears to be running, but ssh does appear to be running.
Hey...isn't the 'reply' function (and the fact that it remembers your login ID, password, e-mail address, yada yada) of Slashdot essentially the same as the '1-click' function on Amazon? Maybe Amazon oughta go after LNUX next.:)
I totally agree. I don't have much in the way of closed source software on my main boxes at all...what do you need to work these days? An operating system, an office suite, a web browser, a text editor, some software development tools (for my work), image editing software, some audio tools, some file management stuff...all of these exist as open source software, and much of the open source stuff is every bit as good, if not better, than their commercial counterparts.
For instance, I have a hard time finding better text editors than Vim and/or Emacs or better compilers than the gcc stuff. The only image editing tool that's really any better than the GIMP is Photoshop, and Photoshop is only better because it has prepress stuff.
Up until a year ago I warezed all my software(for Windows). Now, programs and games are becoming so sophisticated that it is useless to pirate something becasue you lose so many of the features that are included on the CD.
Most people warez an app these days be making ISOs out of the original CDs. What functionality are you losing then?
Re:Cut and dried Copyright violation
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2
They're *linking* the GPLed code... as long as they only change *their* code to the gobbeldygook, I still don't think they're violating GPL. It doesn't say that the source code that they GPL has to be human readable or maintable.
Re:Cut and dried Copyright violation
on
Abusing the GPL?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
No, it's not the same. RTFA.
They're not saying that they're taking someone else's GPL code and changing and redistributing it.
They're saying that they're taking THEIR OWN CODE, linking it with GPL code, making THEIR OWN CODE unreadable, and then GPLing their own code.
First of all, Apple Macintoshes are still produced, sold, and bought and used by millions of people. They never got replaced by anything, really. Secondly, MS-DOS came first. It was introduced three years prior to--and was in common use by--the time the Apple Macintosh was introduced. It couldn't have 'replaced' the Macintosh.
Nothing has replaced the Macintosh. The only thing you can say about the Macintosh is that it's popularity has waned since the introduction Windows 9x...even then, popularity of the Macintosh has grown back to some degree since then.
No, 4.5 hours isn't horrible compared to the average desktop replacement notebook.
What we need is something like the previous poster said, though...screw fast processors...a laptop's advantage is that it's portable...most people want a laptop for word processing and e-mail...How many CPU cycles do you really need for that?
Of course these arent/mutant/ flys. theve just been sterilised.
Sure they are. The sterilization is a mutation caused by radiation. Cells are constantly being replaced in any complex organism, such as a fly. The radiation causes the reproductive cells to replaced with mutated versions of those cells that aren't functional, hence sterile. Hence, these flies are mutants, since they have mutated cells.
The bad thing is that you are killing off the fly population, yes? Think food chain. What do the flies eat? What eats the flies? Messing with the food chain has proved to be horribly wrong in the past. Think about the eagles and hawks that were killed off by DDT. Hawks eat pigeons, with no hawks, there were too many pigeons, hence pigeon turds everywhere, spreading all sorts of diseases...
My understanding having watched some things on TLC, the Discovery Channel, PBS, etc., is that some teams have already produced the flyer, they just can't get it to fly. And they have NO IDEA how the Wright Bros. were able to get the original one off the ground. The idea was that they've been doing this for years and can't get it to fly.
I'll believe they can get it to fly when I see it.:) The thing was built specifically for the original pilot's weight, height etc. Also as you point out, it took a lot of skill to fly that thing... way more than a pilot needs today.
While he undoubtedly has a point, Red Hat, and other Linux distributors, bundle a lot more software than do proprietary UNIX vendors.
There's actually even more to it than just that.:) In Open Source software, because the source code is available, more vulnerabilities are found to begin with.
This is the point Microsoft and others try to make when they say that their closed source model is more secure is that...it's only marginally better at best of course, because whether the vulnerabilities are found or not, they're STILL THERE.
So in comparing raw numbers, no its not a fair contest. There may be 20 exploits found in Debian, and only 12 found in AIX (or whatever the numbers are), but the question is How many more are in AIX that have yet to be discovered vs how many are in Debian that haven't been discovered yet? I'll bet Debian's number is closer to 0 than AIX's.
Another thing to bear in mind: statistics can be maniuplated to say anything you want.:)
Re:complexity of supercomputers approaching brain
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
And maybe you give the brain a bit too much credit -- the last time I checked, "ESP, precognition, and yes, even magick" have never been demonstated to work (please prove me wrong, and give me tomorrow's winning Powerball numbers, using any or all of these methods). Or maybe I'm failing to see the tongue-in-cheek nature of your posting.
Okay, forget the magick for sake of argument -- explain intuition, gut instinct. There is no logic, no rhyme or reason for the things that that we *feel* as opposed to *think*. Do these have anything to do with the brain? Most certainly one would think so.
BTW--it is these things that are related to magick, ESP, precognition, etc.
Re:complexity of supercomputers approaching brain
on
Arguing A.I.
·
· Score: 2
I think you oversimplify the human brain too much. This is just from what we *KNOW* about the human brain. There is much more that we DON'T know about the human brain... a computer (even an "A.I." computer) is just billions or trillions of switches, on and off, 1 and 0.
The human mind is much more complicated. To begin with, the brain is not digital, it's analog. Also, we only know about certain aspects of the human brain. Things like ESP, precognition, and yes, even magick we don't have the foggiest clue how that stuff works, even though there is documented evidence that it *does* work. Since the scientific community can't figure it out, they brush it aside and say it can't be happening. But it DOES happen, and the human mind DOES work like that.
So AI will never approach the capabilities of the human mind, IMHO. You can simulate a person all you want, but it will be only that, a simulation, and never a real person.
I recompiled Qt from source on my four-year-old machine the other day, and it took six hours. I'm not recompiling every bit of software on my machine... it would take weeks.
Well, this distro uses a thing called tmpfs, in which it does most of it's compiling operations in a RAM disk. I would assume this means that you need ample RAM, however, but it should speed things up considerably.
\
what i don't get is that's it's the same people who will actually be _implementing_ these nifty little encryption gizmos, as the ones _breaking_ them in their past-time!! ??
Sure. People who regularly break copy protection schemes are perfect for designing new ones because they will know how to design something that they themselves wouldn't have been able to break.
What they don't realize is that *no security system is undefeatable*. That's right, boys and girls. None. Given enough time and computing resources, anything that can be decrypted by a legitimate user can be decrypted by someone seeking to break that protection.
It comes down to the cheapness of the attack. If it costs more to defeat a security scheme in terms of time and computing resources than the data is worth, no one will do it. Except that you have to account for all the hobbyists and 31337 skr1pt k1dd13z out there who will put in *any* amount of time or computing resources available to them and are simply not worried about cost...they just want to break the thing and make sure other people reap the fruits of their labor.:)
So PAY ATTENTION RIAA, MPAA, and MICHAEL EISNER: THERE IS NO POINT TO ANY OF THIS NONSENSE! STOP IT NOW OR ALL THOSE 31337 SKR1PT K1DDi3Z WILL BE AFTER *YOU* NEXT.
No, it isn't, if the book is non-trivial. Talk to anyone who's on the Guttenburg Project. Even with a sheet fed scanner, it would still take you at least a day to scan it. How much is your time worth? 8 hours * $50/hr = $400, 8 hours * $25/hr = $200, this is far more expensive than a book. Not to mention the amount of computing resources you have to dedicate to it if you wanted to OCR it. Even then, if the book had any pictures or diagrams or tables in it, you're going to have even more work.
"Why are software licenses more restrictive than books?"
Copyright = (Literally) The right to copy.
Because books are physical, tanglible objects and are difficult to copy, there is no need for restrictive licenses. It would me more expensive for me to copy a book and give it to a friend than it would be for that friend to go out and buy her own copy.
Copying software often consists of executing a single command on a computer operating system. It can take mere minutes to copy a software program and it costs (almost) nothing. Certain restrictions are necessary (i.e., the restriction for the software program to be allowed to run on only one computer) other restrictions (i.e., the restrictions that do not allow you to transfer your license to someone else) are nonsense.
Yeah! What happened to "Make love, not war"? Sexuality is a biological part of normal, everyday life, while violence is the fringe behaviour of certain individuals with chemical and psychological imbalances. (Well, not really, but we'll go with that anyway)
And sexuality has far more positive uses than violence.:-)
Compete with SONY? The PSX2 has built-in DVD support. And SONY and Nintendo can only make so many units....more decks means an increase in sales for them.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts Sony, Nintendo, et al. are OEMing this stuff to DVD manufacturers at a a loss, so the DVD manufacturers aren't paying for the loss, the console makers are.
That's simply not true. Very few public schools are research intensive. Most of the time they are private schools like CMU or MIT or Ivy League schools which are also in operation solely through tution, alumni giving, and proceeds from research.
Hmmm? University of Michigan, Purdue University, Wayne State University, Michigan State University, and the University of California (especially Berkely) are all public and are all research intensive universities, to name five right off the top of my head. (UCB is where we get the infamous BSD-descended operating systems, btw).
As great as it would be to come up with some horrible conspiracy about how Microsoft has double agents working in University Administration, it's simply not the way it works.
FWIW, Microsoft has a long-standing history of recruiting from major universities. Microsoft and Bill Gates both have a long-standing history of donating money to schools. C'mon, you can't tell me there isn't SOME favoritism in there.:)
The reason aarpanet made it through is because there wasn't any obvious indication of how huge it would be.
ARPANet/DARPANet was a military project, not a university project. DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Project Agency. Duh. The universities wouldn't have had a choice.
Microsoft didn't do this.
Nobody said they did, but as an aside, isn't just FUN to blame Microsoft for everything? Had a bad day at work? Microsoft. Couldn't find a parking spot? Microsoft. World Trade Center explodes? Microsoft. See how fun it is?:-P
What especially rings my "hoax/troll bell" is the last couple of lines about the message being "Microsoft Confidential" and how he can track any and all forwards. Give me a break.
It is *possible* to track forwards if all the recipients are within the company's internal network. Probably not very practical, but definitely possible.:)
Of course, the intended audience for the e-mail is sales people who probably don't have much technical background at all to know the difference, so IF it is a legitimate memo, then it is simply a scare tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
Near as I can tell, this looks like what he may have done.
... good.
Here's the output from nmap:
Starting nmap V. 2.53 by fyodor@insecure.org
Host toad.com (140.174.2.1) appears to be up
Initiating SYN half-open stealth scan against toad.com (140.174.2.1)
...
Interesting ports on toad.com (140.174.2.1):
(The 1507 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
Port State Service
13/tcp open daytime
19/tcp open chargen
21/tcp open ftp
22/tcp open ssh
25/tcp open smtp
53/tcp open domain
79/tcp open finger
111/tcp open sunrpc
515/tcp open printer
540/tcp open uucp
543/tcp open klogin
544/tcp open kshell
742/tcp open netrcs
2000/tcp open callbook
2105/tcp open eklogin
6000/tcp open X11
Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 16 seconds
Notice no smtp appears to be running, but ssh does appear to be running.
Hey...isn't the 'reply' function (and the fact that it remembers your login ID, password, e-mail address, yada yada) of Slashdot essentially the same as the '1-click' function on Amazon? Maybe Amazon oughta go after LNUX next. :)
I totally agree. I don't have much in the way of closed source software on my main boxes at all...what do you need to work these days? An operating system, an office suite, a web browser, a text editor, some software development tools (for my work), image editing software, some audio tools, some file management stuff...all of these exist as open source software, and much of the open source stuff is every bit as good, if not better, than their commercial counterparts.
For instance, I have a hard time finding better text editors than Vim and/or Emacs or better compilers than the gcc stuff. The only image editing tool that's really any better than the GIMP is Photoshop, and Photoshop is only better because it has prepress stuff.
Up until a year ago I warezed all my software(for Windows). Now, programs and games are becoming so sophisticated that it is useless to pirate something becasue you lose so many of the features that are included on the CD.
Most people warez an app these days be making ISOs out of the original CDs. What functionality are you losing then?
They're *linking* the GPLed code ... as long as they only change *their* code to the gobbeldygook, I still don't think they're violating GPL. It doesn't say that the source code that they GPL has to be human readable or maintable.
No, it's not the same. RTFA.
They're not saying that they're taking someone else's GPL code and changing and redistributing it.
They're saying that they're taking THEIR OWN CODE, linking it with GPL code, making THEIR OWN CODE unreadable, and then GPLing their own code.
IANAL, but this sounds legal.
MS DOS replaced Apple Macintosh, remember?
Um, no. Please put down the crack pipe.
First of all, Apple Macintoshes are still produced, sold, and bought and used by millions of people. They never got replaced by anything, really. Secondly, MS-DOS came first. It was introduced three years prior to--and was in common use by--the time the Apple Macintosh was introduced. It couldn't have 'replaced' the Macintosh.
Nothing has replaced the Macintosh. The only thing you can say about the Macintosh is that it's popularity has waned since the introduction Windows 9x...even then, popularity of the Macintosh has grown back to some degree since then.
No, 4.5 hours isn't horrible compared to the average desktop replacement notebook.
What we need is something like the previous poster said, though...screw fast processors...a laptop's advantage is that it's portable...most people want a laptop for word processing and e-mail...How many CPU cycles do you really need for that?
Of course these arent /mutant/ flys. theve just been sterilised.
Sure they are. The sterilization is a mutation caused by radiation. Cells are constantly being replaced in any complex organism, such as a fly. The radiation causes the reproductive cells to replaced with mutated versions of those cells that aren't functional, hence sterile. Hence, these flies are mutants, since they have mutated cells.
The bad thing is that you are killing off the fly population, yes? Think food chain. What do the flies eat? What eats the flies? Messing with the food chain has proved to be horribly wrong in the past. Think about the eagles and hawks that were killed off by DDT. Hawks eat pigeons, with no hawks, there were too many pigeons, hence pigeon turds everywhere, spreading all sorts of diseases...
They used a jeep to pull it.
How could they have used a *JEEP* in 1903? Jeeps weren't even *invented* until like 1941. Please put the crack pipe down.
Ummmm....the Soviets had planes in 1962 (and *well* before that), why would it say flying is a myth?
My understanding having watched some things on TLC, the Discovery Channel, PBS, etc., is that some teams have already produced the flyer, they just can't get it to fly. And they have NO IDEA how the Wright Bros. were able to get the original one off the ground. The idea was that they've been doing this for years and can't get it to fly.
:) The thing was built specifically for the original pilot's weight, height etc. Also as you point out, it took a lot of skill to fly that thing... way more than a pilot needs today.
I'll believe they can get it to fly when I see it.
While he undoubtedly has a point, Red Hat, and other Linux distributors, bundle a lot more software than do proprietary UNIX vendors.
:) In Open Source software, because the source code is available, more vulnerabilities are found to begin with.
:)
There's actually even more to it than just that.
This is the point Microsoft and others try to make when they say that their closed source model is more secure is that...it's only marginally better at best of course, because whether the vulnerabilities are found or not, they're STILL THERE.
So in comparing raw numbers, no its not a fair contest. There may be 20 exploits found in Debian, and only 12 found in AIX (or whatever the numbers are), but the question is How many more are in AIX that have yet to be discovered vs how many are in Debian that haven't been discovered yet? I'll bet Debian's number is closer to 0 than AIX's.
Another thing to bear in mind: statistics can be maniuplated to say anything you want.
And maybe you give the brain a bit too much credit -- the last time I checked, "ESP, precognition, and yes, even magick" have never been demonstated to work (please prove me wrong, and give me tomorrow's winning Powerball numbers, using any or all of these methods). Or maybe I'm failing to see the tongue-in-cheek nature of your posting.
Okay, forget the magick for sake of argument -- explain intuition, gut instinct. There is no logic, no rhyme or reason for the things that that we *feel* as opposed to *think*. Do these have anything to do with the brain? Most certainly one would think so.
BTW--it is these things that are related to magick, ESP, precognition, etc.
I think you oversimplify the human brain too much. This is just from what we *KNOW* about the human brain. There is much more that we DON'T know about the human brain... a computer (even an "A.I." computer) is just billions or trillions of switches, on and off, 1 and 0.
The human mind is much more complicated. To begin with, the brain is not digital, it's analog. Also, we only know about certain aspects of the human brain. Things like ESP, precognition, and yes, even magick we don't have the foggiest clue how that stuff works, even though there is documented evidence that it *does* work. Since the scientific community can't figure it out, they brush it aside and say it can't be happening. But it DOES happen, and the human mind DOES work like that.
So AI will never approach the capabilities of the human mind, IMHO. You can simulate a person all you want, but it will be only that, a simulation, and never a real person.
I recompiled Qt from source on my four-year-old machine the other day, and it took six hours. I'm not recompiling every bit of software on my machine... it would take weeks.
Well, this distro uses a thing called tmpfs, in which it does most of it's compiling operations in a RAM disk. I would assume this means that you need ample RAM, however, but it should speed things up considerably.
\
The ITS operating system (the world's second timesharing system, and the system for which RMS and others first developed EMACS)
Minor nitpick. RMS first developed Emacs on Unix. It was modeled after TECO, which and others hacked together on ITS.
what i don't get is that's it's the same people who will actually be _implementing_ these nifty little encryption gizmos, as the ones _breaking_ them in their past-time!! ??
:)
Sure. People who regularly break copy protection schemes are perfect for designing new ones because they will know how to design something that they themselves wouldn't have been able to break.
What they don't realize is that *no security system is undefeatable*. That's right, boys and girls. None. Given enough time and computing resources, anything that can be decrypted by a legitimate user can be decrypted by someone seeking to break that protection.
It comes down to the cheapness of the attack. If it costs more to defeat a security scheme in terms of time and computing resources than the data is worth, no one will do it. Except that you have to account for all the hobbyists and 31337 skr1pt k1dd13z out there who will put in *any* amount of time or computing resources available to them and are simply not worried about cost...they just want to break the thing and make sure other people reap the fruits of their labor.
So PAY ATTENTION RIAA, MPAA, and MICHAEL EISNER: THERE IS NO POINT TO ANY OF THIS NONSENSE! STOP IT NOW OR ALL THOSE 31337 SKR1PT K1DDi3Z WILL BE AFTER *YOU* NEXT.
'Nuff said.
This only works on ext2 file systems. For those of using ReiserFS or Ext3, this doesn't work.
No, it isn't, if the book is non-trivial. Talk to anyone who's on the Guttenburg Project. Even with a sheet fed scanner, it would still take you at least a day to scan it. How much is your time worth? 8 hours * $50/hr = $400, 8 hours * $25/hr = $200, this is far more expensive than a book. Not to mention the amount of computing resources you have to dedicate to it if you wanted to OCR it. Even then, if the book had any pictures or diagrams or tables in it, you're going to have even more work.
"Why are software licenses more restrictive than books?"
Copyright = (Literally) The right to copy.
Because books are physical, tanglible objects and are difficult to copy, there is no need for restrictive licenses. It would me more expensive for me to copy a book and give it to a friend than it would be for that friend to go out and buy her own copy.
Copying software often consists of executing a single command on a computer operating system. It can take mere minutes to copy a software program and it costs (almost) nothing. Certain restrictions are necessary (i.e., the restriction for the software program to be allowed to run on only one computer) other restrictions (i.e., the restrictions that do not allow you to transfer your license to someone else) are nonsense.
Capice?
Yeah! What happened to "Make love, not war"? Sexuality is a biological part of normal, everyday life, while violence is the fringe behaviour of certain individuals with chemical and psychological imbalances. (Well, not really, but we'll go with that anyway)
:-)
And sexuality has far more positive uses than violence.
Compete with SONY? The PSX2 has built-in DVD support. And SONY and Nintendo can only make so many units....more decks means an increase in sales for them.
I'll bet you dollars to donuts Sony, Nintendo, et al. are OEMing this stuff to DVD manufacturers at a a loss, so the DVD manufacturers aren't paying for the loss, the console makers are.
That's simply not true. Very few public schools are research intensive. Most of the time they are private schools like CMU or MIT or Ivy League schools which are also in operation solely through tution, alumni giving, and proceeds from research.
:)
:-P
Hmmm? University of Michigan, Purdue University, Wayne State University, Michigan State University, and the University of California (especially Berkely) are all public and are all research intensive universities, to name five right off the top of my head. (UCB is where we get the infamous BSD-descended operating systems, btw).
As great as it would be to come up with some horrible conspiracy about how Microsoft has double agents working in University Administration, it's simply not the way it works.
FWIW, Microsoft has a long-standing history of recruiting from major universities. Microsoft and Bill Gates both have a long-standing history of donating money to schools. C'mon, you can't tell me there isn't SOME favoritism in there.
The reason aarpanet made it through is because there wasn't any obvious indication of how huge it would be.
ARPANet/DARPANet was a military project, not a university project. DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Project Agency. Duh. The universities wouldn't have had a choice.
Microsoft didn't do this.
Nobody said they did, but as an aside, isn't just FUN to blame Microsoft for everything? Had a bad day at work? Microsoft. Couldn't find a parking spot? Microsoft. World Trade Center explodes? Microsoft. See how fun it is?
What especially rings my "hoax/troll bell" is the last couple of lines about the message being "Microsoft Confidential" and how he can track any and all forwards. Give me a break.
:)
It is *possible* to track forwards if all the recipients are within the company's internal network. Probably not very practical, but definitely possible.
Of course, the intended audience for the e-mail is sales people who probably don't have much technical background at all to know the difference, so IF it is a legitimate memo, then it is simply a scare tactic.