CmdrTaco added logins in 98 but they didn't go public until August 98. (I read his history and I believe the month was August.)
At any rate, he allowed the hoi polloi to get logins, which was great except I had worked all night pulling cable, came home at six, and then I had to do a bunch of crap with my girlfriend and by the time I had recovered (the next day) and was reading my/. email and I had missed the addition by two hours the day before.
So all I got was this crappy number... but I'm pretty sure we're remembering the same event. Damned if I can find mention of it in the archives.
Of course - wait for it - the site was old hat at that point.
max ['But now I have a Linux-controlled walker to get around with!']
So I log into slashdot (as opposed to not loggin in per usual) to read a story about slashdot being like, old, and wind up reading a story about Hemos talking about media niches and I stumble across Stirling commenting.
max ['Cap'n! The warp engines can't take this level of meta niche collision much longer!']
Re:Another source of hacker history
on
Hacker Culture
·
· Score: 1
> If anyone likes the idea of a hacker history and doesn't have > the time to do the reading, I'd recommend Pirates of Silicon > Valley [imdb.com]. It aired a few months ago on TV and covers > most of what the reviewer talks about.
Ah, yes. For the people who get their HISTORY from the inside of boxes of Captain Crunch.
ash ['Chocolate-coated Sugar Bombs - now with snoggy 'l33t warez inside!']
Five syllables here Seven syllables go here Five syllables more
ash
['Can't forget it now, eh?']
Re:On Katz and Dogs (was Re:Yes, you are)
on
Dog Bites Website
·
· Score: 1
>In my mind, WE = Everyone with a UID under 100K. In other >peoples minds WE = Everyone with a UID under 50K. In Yet >another set of peoples minds it's UID 10K. >And I imagine for you, WE = everyone under 553567.
Gee, I thought it was ME == 18860, as I've no idea who ye are.
ash ['Someone is going to start blithering on about how I'm part of a community now, aren't they?']
Would someone please be so kind to inform as to why, exactly we have a new 'standard' for encryption of _video_to_monitors_, plus such silly things as specific CPU ID numbers, yet nowhere do I see Intel (or any other large corporation) supporting/ developing/ creating standards for protection of user privacy such as encrypted file systems, encryption for email, encryption for netnews, etc. etc. etc. Granted, encryption schemes can and are broken, but this sure seems like yet way that the 'idiots' who buy the crap can be screwed up the rear by Intel so they can continue to expand their profit margins. (I get the sense ever sense they happy dancing fab guys in clean suits as campaign that the attitude over there is, 'If they bought that, we can put ANYTHING over on them.' One could rant about the complete lack of 'moral uprightness' (for lack of a better term) displayed by such companies but given that they seem to have a total lack of even the sense of such a thing, one would be wasting one's breath, leaving one grasping for a proper reaction. Feh.
ash ['I say we pull back and nuke the site from orbit.']
>How about inserting the motherboard into a >freezer with some kind of humidity control to >eliminate condensation. That way you could >overclock the entire system bus.
Essentially, the idea is to replace standard atmosphere with something that conducts heat as well or better and can be cooled more effectively, AND is inert/non corrosive/non electrically conductive, right? So why not a pure nitrogen atmosphere? Of course, having a sealed unit would be a pain. Pure antifreeze? Rubbing alcohol? (Things that wouldn't freeze solid.) (Baby oil == mineral oil plus fragrance.) Of course, the problem with 'water'-cooled anything is the pain of the maintanance.
Absolutely. I don't know the semantics of the instructions for PID, but if a user-space (ring 3/VM) instruction is used, then presumably the ID number is being returned in a register. (Well, maybe not - could be hard coded 'special register' I suppose) but the copy-protected program has got to issue getpid (equivalent) and then perform some kind of register to register compare. A multitasking OS is constantly interrupting the stream of instructions to do something else (that's how 387 emulation is done) so the instruction is issued, a user ISV is called, clobbers the register with a new fake number, and back to the program with the program none the wiser. That would be good in the end, because it would be a single point of failure for copy-protection. No copying numbers off of other people, no losing the number...just use one number on every machine.
Easy to use piracy. Easy to use identity spoofing!
I get the sense that Intel is going to 'rue the day' with the P3.
Slashdot Mirror
CmdrTaco added logins in 98 but they didn't go public until August 98. (I read his history and I believe the month was August.)
At any rate, he allowed the hoi polloi to get logins, which was great except I had worked all night pulling cable, came home at six, and then I had to do a bunch of crap with my girlfriend and by the time I had recovered (the next day) and was reading my /. email and I had missed the addition by two hours the day before.
So all I got was this crappy number... but I'm pretty sure we're remembering the same event. Damned if I can find mention of it in the archives.
Of course - wait for it - the site was old hat at that point.
max
['But now I have a Linux-controlled walker to get around with!']
So I log into slashdot (as opposed to not loggin in per usual) to read a story about slashdot being like, old, and wind up reading a story about Hemos talking about media niches and I stumble across Stirling commenting.
max
['Cap'n! The warp engines can't take this level of meta niche collision much longer!']
I'd think you'd prefer to use Lucifer.
max
['Although that could be... painful.']
> If anyone likes the idea of a hacker history and doesn't have
> the time to do the reading, I'd recommend Pirates of Silicon
> Valley [imdb.com]. It aired a few months ago on TV and covers
> most of what the reviewer talks about.
Ah, yes. For the people who get their HISTORY from the inside of boxes of Captain Crunch.
ash
['Chocolate-coated Sugar Bombs - now with snoggy 'l33t warez inside!']
>Line 1 5 syllables
>Line 2 7 syllables
>Line 3 5 syllables
Tsk.
Five syllables here
Seven syllables go here
Five syllables more
ash
['Can't forget it now, eh?']
>In my mind, WE = Everyone with a UID under 100K. In other
>peoples minds WE = Everyone with a UID under 50K. In Yet
>another set of peoples minds it's UID 10K.
>And I imagine for you, WE = everyone under 553567.
Gee, I thought it was ME == 18860, as I've no idea who ye are.
ash
['Someone is going to start blithering on about how I'm part of a community now, aren't they?']
Would someone please be so kind to inform as to why, exactly we have a new 'standard' for encryption of _video_to_monitors_, plus such silly things as specific CPU ID numbers, yet nowhere do I see Intel (or any other large corporation) supporting/ developing/ creating standards for protection of user privacy such as encrypted file systems, encryption for email, encryption for netnews, etc. etc. etc. Granted, encryption schemes can and are broken, but this sure seems like yet way that the 'idiots' who buy the crap can be screwed up the rear by Intel so they can continue to expand their profit margins. (I get the sense ever sense they happy dancing fab guys in clean suits as campaign that the attitude over there is, 'If they bought that, we can put ANYTHING over on them.'
One could rant about the complete lack of 'moral uprightness' (for lack of a better term) displayed by such companies but given that they seem to have a total lack of even the sense of such a thing, one would be wasting one's breath, leaving one grasping for a proper reaction.
Feh.
ash
['I say we pull back and nuke the site from orbit.']
>How about inserting the motherboard into a
>freezer with some kind of humidity control to
>eliminate condensation. That way you could
>overclock the entire system bus.
Essentially, the idea is to replace standard atmosphere with something that conducts heat as well or better and can be cooled more effectively,
AND is inert/non corrosive/non electrically conductive, right? So why not a pure nitrogen atmosphere? Of course, having a sealed unit would be a pain.
Pure antifreeze? Rubbing alcohol? (Things
that wouldn't freeze solid.) (Baby oil == mineral oil plus fragrance.) Of course, the problem with 'water'-cooled anything is the pain of the maintanance.
Absolutely. I don't know the semantics of the
instructions for PID, but if a user-space
(ring 3/VM) instruction is used, then presumably
the ID number is being returned in a register.
(Well, maybe not - could be hard coded 'special register' I suppose) but the copy-protected
program has got to issue getpid (equivalent) and
then perform some kind of register to register compare.
A multitasking OS is constantly interrupting
the stream of instructions to do something
else (that's how 387 emulation is done)
so the instruction is issued, a user ISV is
called, clobbers the register with a new fake
number, and back to the program with the program none the wiser.
That would be good in the end, because it would
be a single point of failure for copy-protection.
No copying numbers off of other people, no losing
the number...just use one number on every machine.
Easy to use piracy. Easy to use identity spoofing!
I get the sense that Intel is going to 'rue the day' with the P3.