The people who drive manuals are much more in tune with their car and surroundings, because they have to be. If you don't anticipate traffic slowing down, you risk stalling the car. If you speed up too much without responding appropriately, you risk blowing your engine. (Ok...not so much anymore, as pretty much everything has an over rev fuel cutoff.) I'd be interested to see accident statistics, especially in North America, that take into consideration whether the car was an automatic or a manual. I'd be willing to bet that manuals have a lower accident rate per driver mile.
I can only think the fact that you immediately jump in to any thread even remotely mentioning "APK" with huge, rambling tomes of crap spouting about how superior you are to virtually everyone in the entire history of computer technology, means that you are, in fact, deeply insecure, unsure of yourself, and require validation from others to improve your pitiful view of yourself, so use a massive, over the top superiority complex to attempt to do this.
I'm pretty sure a few counselling sessions would help you with that, unless, of course, you attempt to prove how much better you are than the counsellor, and they end up kicking you out for being....well....yourself.
And if counselling doesn't work, then there's always SIG.....
Slashdot is, more and more, becoming populated with tech wannabes who probably use it to brag about how "techie" they are. The deteriorating quality of ask/. posts over the last few years is a symptom of this.
There's still good stuff here, certainly, but there's a lot of noisy chatter from n00bs that you have to filter out before the good stuff comes to the fore.
Simple. Write a GUI in Visual Basic to trace an IP address.....d'oh!
No....write a GUI in Visual Basic that automatically downloads and runs the VNC server, and connects it to the listening connection on your end. They click to download, click again to run, and boom, it's done.
If the submitter knew how to copy and paste an error message into Google, then the submitter would also be able to search Google for cross platform desktop sharing software.
I've been using TightVNC for quite a while, and it's had brute force protection for as long as I can remember. It doesn't tell you that somebody's hammering on it, but it only allows a certain number of attempts - I think it's 5 - before it locks you out for a certain period. I've actually had this bite me when I didn't have a shortcut to a certain machine, and typed in the wrong password a few times. All of a sudden I have to wait for a few minutes before it will let me even try to log in again, regardless of the password I use.
Random, flailing, insult-hurling rants directed at n00bs who get infected, random WORDS capitalized AND bolded for no REAson whatsoever, and moments after realizing that his decade old security advice document that was written for Windows 2000 is completely outdated, his head explodes.
There is malware that uses the hosts file to block access to update sites for all the major antivirus programs, which isn't really much different to what you're proposing.
See, this is why idiots will always be prone to infection, regardless of what operating system they use: because they don't understand security for shit.
Think about it: if a process has permission to write to the hosts file, it can also remove the immutable bit in the filesystem attributes.
Readers with actual reading comprehension would be a good thing, too. From what I've read, it doesn't complain when you actually edit the hosts file, but rather when you visit some specific websites that are listed in the hosts file.
By the sounds of this, turning of any A/V software during the edit wouldn't help at all, because it isn't that it blocks the save of the edited file, it's that it deletes the individual line for the blocked site you're currently wanting to visit.
Any security software, by definition, and regardless of operating system, has to have access to the entire system, ergo, needs system rights. The fact that you missed this has nothing to do with your lack of Windows knowledge, and everything to do with your lack of security knowledge.
Assuming that all redirects to localhost are user-specified is all well and good, until you figure out that some malware makes the hosts file looks like this:
Not that I consider this a good move by Microsoft, by any means, but implying that the situation is as simple as you're making it out to be is dangerous.
That wasn't caused directly by the earthquake, though. At least, not in the conventional sense.
That was caused by over 30 million cubic metres of rock falling nearly a kilometre into the water. No matter how you look at it, that's going to make a heck of a splash. In fact, one of the witness accounts on the linked page states that it wasn't a wave at that 1700 foot height, but the water splashed that high from the initial impact of the rock.
Not that this isn't an awesomely powerful event, though....
So ridiculously easy to fake it's not even worth looking at.
I want to copy some post to YouTube. I set my computer clock back 2 years prior to the YT posting, and download the video. "Look! I had this video on my computer two years before they posted it! They're infringing! They're infringing!"
In case you meant the YT posting dates, then that doesn't show who created it, either. In this case, NASA gave the video to Scripps, which then posted it. NASA soon after posted it to their channel. According to your method, Scripps would own the copyright.
It also doesn't allow for assignment of copyright, since the original owner would have a computer file from before the assignment took place.
You're committing perjury if you claim to represent a rights owner whose rights are "allegedly" infringed. If no violation exists, it's not perjury. Even if the rights owner doesn't actually own the rights to the work in question, it's still not perjury.
With no body, you can't prove the "victim" didn't run away to South America, yet they still arrest someone and charge they with murder. Where's the "real provable murder" in this case? There are plenty of others, too.
True. And I don't think they should all be arrested. That would easily lead to a slippery slope, telescreen kind of society.
However, threats like this should certainly be investigated. If the investigation leads to more serious information, then perhaps an arrest is warranted.
So does that mean if I'm exploring out in the woods, and I stumble upon a cave entrance, that the cave didn't exist prior to my discovery? If I'm researching some technology and I stumble upon a related patent, that the patent didn't exist before I found it? Great, that means I just need to stumble across every patent in the USPTO, and I own every technology in existence!!
Screw the rest of the steps, just:
5. PROFIT!!!!1!
Your interpretation is completely at odds with decades of history of this phrase.
I wouldn't expect someone to go into a crowded movie theatre with an assault rifle and indesciminately open fire, either, but there you go.
That sounds pretty over the top to me, so I guess I should ignore it if someone says they'll do that, because, after all, it's just an over the top threat that nobody would ever follow through on...
Slashdot Mirror
And here I thought it was the exact opposite:
The people who drive manuals are much more in tune with their car and surroundings, because they have to be. If you don't anticipate traffic slowing down, you risk stalling the car. If you speed up too much without responding appropriately, you risk blowing your engine. (Ok...not so much anymore, as pretty much everything has an over rev fuel cutoff.)
I'd be interested to see accident statistics, especially in North America, that take into consideration whether the car was an automatic or a manual. I'd be willing to bet that manuals have a lower accident rate per driver mile.
a 4W pickup intent on stealing your right of way?
FTFY.
What you said didn't even make sense.
That comment wasn't a "random, flailing, insult-hurling rant."
It was quite directed, and to the point. It was also true.
This tirade of yours, on the other hand:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3058625&cid=41051235
was random, flailing, and somewhat nonsensical.
I can only think the fact that you immediately jump in to any thread even remotely mentioning "APK" with huge, rambling tomes of crap spouting about how superior you are to virtually everyone in the entire history of computer technology, means that you are, in fact, deeply insecure, unsure of yourself, and require validation from others to improve your pitiful view of yourself, so use a massive, over the top superiority complex to attempt to do this.
I'm pretty sure a few counselling sessions would help you with that, unless, of course, you attempt to prove how much better you are than the counsellor, and they end up kicking you out for being....well....yourself.
And if counselling doesn't work, then there's always SIG.....
Slashdot is, more and more, becoming populated with tech wannabes who probably use it to brag about how "techie" they are. /. posts over the last few years is a symptom of this.
The deteriorating quality of ask
There's still good stuff here, certainly, but there's a lot of noisy chatter from n00bs that you have to filter out before the good stuff comes to the fore.
Simple. Write a GUI in Visual Basic to trace an IP address.....d'oh!
No....write a GUI in Visual Basic that automatically downloads and runs the VNC server, and connects it to the listening connection on your end.
They click to download, click again to run, and boom, it's done.
If the submitter knew how to copy and paste an error message into Google, then the submitter would also be able to search Google for cross platform desktop sharing software.
I've been using TightVNC for quite a while, and it's had brute force protection for as long as I can remember. It doesn't tell you that somebody's hammering on it, but it only allows a certain number of attempts - I think it's 5 - before it locks you out for a certain period.
I've actually had this bite me when I didn't have a shortcut to a certain machine, and typed in the wrong password a few times. All of a sudden I have to wait for a few minutes before it will let me even try to log in again, regardless of the password I use.
Simple.
Random, flailing, insult-hurling rants directed at n00bs who get infected, random WORDS capitalized AND bolded for no REAson whatsoever, and moments after realizing that his decade old security advice document that was written for Windows 2000 is completely outdated, his head explodes.
There is malware that uses the hosts file to block access to update sites for all the major antivirus programs, which isn't really much different to what you're proposing.
See, this is why idiots will always be prone to infection, regardless of what operating system they use: because they don't understand security for shit.
Think about it: if a process has permission to write to the hosts file, it can also remove the immutable bit in the filesystem attributes.
Readers with actual reading comprehension would be a good thing, too.
From what I've read, it doesn't complain when you actually edit the hosts file, but rather when you visit some specific websites that are listed in the hosts file.
By the sounds of this, turning of any A/V software during the edit wouldn't help at all, because it isn't that it blocks the save of the edited file, it's that it deletes the individual line for the blocked site you're currently wanting to visit.
Not using Windows is irrelevant.
Any security software, by definition, and regardless of operating system, has to have access to the entire system, ergo, needs system rights.
The fact that you missed this has nothing to do with your lack of Windows knowledge, and everything to do with your lack of security knowledge.
I'd say that's quite the limb, after all.
Assuming that all redirects to localhost are user-specified is all well and good, until you figure out that some malware makes the hosts file looks like this:
update.symantec.com 127.0.0.1
update.trendmicro.com 127.0.0.1
update.mcafee.com 127.0.0.1
update.microsoft.com 127.0.0.1
Not that I consider this a good move by Microsoft, by any means, but implying that the situation is as simple as you're making it out to be is dangerous.
That wasn't caused directly by the earthquake, though. At least, not in the conventional sense.
That was caused by over 30 million cubic metres of rock falling nearly a kilometre into the water.
No matter how you look at it, that's going to make a heck of a splash. In fact, one of the witness accounts on the linked page states that it wasn't a wave at that 1700 foot height, but the water splashed that high from the initial impact of the rock.
Not that this isn't an awesomely powerful event, though....
So ridiculously easy to fake it's not even worth looking at.
I want to copy some post to YouTube. I set my computer clock back 2 years prior to the YT posting, and download the video.
"Look! I had this video on my computer two years before they posted it! They're infringing! They're infringing!"
In case you meant the YT posting dates, then that doesn't show who created it, either. In this case, NASA gave the video to Scripps, which then posted it.
NASA soon after posted it to their channel. According to your method, Scripps would own the copyright.
It also doesn't allow for assignment of copyright, since the original owner would have a computer file from before the assignment took place.
No you're not. Reread the section.
You're committing perjury if you claim to represent a rights owner whose rights are "allegedly" infringed. If no violation exists, it's not perjury. Even if the rights owner doesn't actually own the rights to the work in question, it's still not perjury.
Except the cops won't arrest you for a 'claimed act of murder' unless there were:
1. a real provable murder.
Really?
With no body, you can't prove the "victim" didn't run away to South America, yet they still arrest someone and charge they with murder. Where's the "real provable murder" in this case?
There are plenty of others, too.
That's the way (crunch-crunch-crunch) I liiiike it!
All those fricking articles about the Pirate Bay and Sealand a while back, and you didn't know where the North Sea is?
Especially since, with a name like Johannes Buchner, which sounds German, you should know that the North Sea is Germany's northwest border......
True. And I don't think they should all be arrested. That would easily lead to a slippery slope, telescreen kind of society.
However, threats like this should certainly be investigated. If the investigation leads to more serious information, then perhaps an arrest is warranted.
...*
What is that?
What?....wait...noooo....ARRRRRRGGGGHHH!!!
Mental terrorist!!! MENTAL TERRORIST!!!!!
If these researchers disappear soon, you'll know said agencies have had the technology for a while. :)
So does that mean if I'm exploring out in the woods, and I stumble upon a cave entrance, that the cave didn't exist prior to my discovery?
If I'm researching some technology and I stumble upon a related patent, that the patent didn't exist before I found it? Great, that means I just need to stumble across every patent in the USPTO, and I own every technology in existence!!
Screw the rest of the steps, just:
5. PROFIT!!!!1!
Your interpretation is completely at odds with decades of history of this phrase.
I wouldn't expect someone to go into a crowded movie theatre with an assault rifle and indesciminately open fire, either, but there you go.
That sounds pretty over the top to me, so I guess I should ignore it if someone says they'll do that, because, after all, it's just an over the top threat that nobody would ever follow through on...
Of course they're not going to START driving with their eyes closed. They already DO!