You bet your ass I used fake info in my WHOIS then [when registering "whitearyanresistance.com"].
So basically you want all the benefits of free speech, but none of the responsibilities. All the latitude, none of the culpability. You are afraid to stand behind your words and actions.
Ever notice how on Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards rarely get modded up past +2?
In fact, I'd suggest making the knock sequence much longer then in the article; ten might be good. Then, if you allocate 100 ports to the knocked and randomly select a 10 port sequence for the knocking, you get 100 ** 10 possible knocks, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 sextillion) possible knocks.
And this number is only relevant if the attempted cracker knows your knock sequence is exactly 10 ports long. Add or subtract a couple steps from the sequence, and the number of possibilities increases factorially.
That's why you always hear about Muslim terrorists and Islamic extremists, and not about Christian, scientologist, Jewish, or any other type
Check out the U.S. State Department's List of Known Terrorist Organizations. See how many of them are identified as Islamist? If a large percentage of media reporting about terrorism focuses on Islamist organizations, I suggest that it is simply because a similarly large percentage of terrorist acts are committed by those who call themselves Muslims.
I can hardly say there is a "slant" in "Big Media" is the reporting is statistically representative of what's actually going on in the world.
"Ten Technologies that are more or less obsolete in general use but still serve small niches better than newer technologies."
And does the author really think 14-kilobit-per-second modems! were a product of the early 1980's? We weren't lucky enough to get those until the mid-1990's. Maybe he's just LUCKY that he doesn't remember 110-baud acoustic couplers...
Have you ever seen VirtualPC run on a Mac? I've seen instances where VPC is able to emulate code pretty close to the x86 equivalent speed.
The CPU instructions are no problem. It's emulating the peripheral hardware that's going to kill performance. Even if the video chip they put in the Xbox2 is backwards-compatible with the original, the PPC and x86 architectures are different enough that a substantial emulation layer will be required.
Considering every machine at the lab has a hostname with a.gov suffix
Assuming every machine at the lab was assigned a globally-visible hostname, that is. Is there really any reason why referencing workstations solely by IP address wouldn't be sufficient from them?
Is there anything good inside of you? If there is, I really wanna know. Is there anything Good inside of you? If there is, I really wanna Know Is there...?
Well, if you don't center the benchmarks on SOME common ground (as much as possible), the resulting comparisons will be meaningless.
Say you decided to benchmark OS X on an Xserve against RedHat Linux on an Athlon. If the Apple scores better, was it because the OS is better, or because the hardware is better? There's no way of knowing.
One thing I've always wanted to see on a cell phone: An LED flashlight.
My Hiptop (aka T-Mobile Sidekick) has a high-intensity LED that can be used as a flashlight (Menu-F from the Jump screen). Ends up kind of pinkish and diffused because of the hardware design though.
an XMPP session is just a pair of XML documents (one going in each direction).
Terrible design.
1 - Makes it harder than necessary to reconcile messages going in one direction with messages going the other. How much work does it take to display a log of both sides of a conversation? 2 - Doesn't scale well from 2-way communications to 3-way, 4-way, n-way communications. 3 - If a session gets terminated prematurely, you've got a partial XML document. Which won't validate.
Messages can be encapsulated in XML. Sessions should not.
i design web sites for a living. there's nothing worse than getting a web site looking just the way you want, then running a W3C CSS and HTML validator and having everything check out 100 percent....then to check the site with IE. holy crap
Your process is broken. You should be coding from the start so that your pages look good in the browsers actually in use, non in some theoretical ideal browser that the W3C would like to see.
Official standards are nice, but ad-hoc standards are what the world actually runs on. Very few of us are in a position to tell 80+% of our user base is wrong... are you?
that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.
What I'm saying is that there's a good chance their site DOES confuse the public. Yeah okay sure they have a casual "we are not affiliated" notice at the foot of the page, but how many search engines do you know of that have an "I'm feeling lucky!" button?
Have you ever seen a "Chavrolet" automobile? Or eaten at a "MacRonald's" fast food restaurant? Or seen "Ponosonic" electronics for sale anywhere other than a grey-market bazaar? In practice, the bar for trademark infringement is lower than you seem to think.
[list of registered trademarks matching/.OO.LE/]
These are all fine and good, but do any of these trademarks pertain to computer search engines?
If you look at each argument in isolation from all the rest, yeah, the two aren't identical in any one way. But it's the COMBINATION of ALL the similarities -- that they have a similar name as Google, that they're offering a similar product to Google, that their site looks and feels similar to Google's -- that's going to bite them.
So now they can claim ownership of "doodle.com", "poodle.com", etc.?
No. Not ownership. But if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.
How about "similar sounding" names, like "frugal", "luger", etc.? Note that the latter is already a trademark[...]
And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.
If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google, why shouldn't they assume the same of Booble?
lets call it $200US total cost... So, your point was?
Yes, the point. $200 is how much it cost for you to fix one infected machine. For a company with 400 employees, let's say there's 400 workstations and 50 servers. If they all get infected, that's $90,000 to clean them all. Even if only half the systems are affected, that's $45,000 -- pretty close to what the article quotes.
I also remember some users back then thinking it would work the same in 95 as in NT, since both systems' GUI looked so similar.
You mean it didn't?
In NT-based systems, pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del during a session brings up the Task Manager window. In 95-based systems, it brings up a simpler window that just has a process list and halt/reboot/logout buttons. The specifics are different, but the general idea is the same.
Of course, most of the time if an app died under 95 the system would be so hosed that your key combo would be met instead by a BSOD or a total lockup, but...
Slashdot Mirror
You bet your ass I used fake info in my WHOIS then [when registering "whitearyanresistance.com"].
So basically you want all the benefits of free speech, but none of the responsibilities. All the latitude, none of the culpability. You are afraid to stand behind your words and actions.
Ever notice how on Slashdot, Anonymous Cowards rarely get modded up past +2?
In fact, I'd suggest making the knock sequence much longer then in the article; ten might be good. Then, if you allocate 100 ports to the knocked and randomly select a 10 port sequence for the knocking, you get 100 ** 10 possible knocks, or 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 sextillion) possible knocks.
And this number is only relevant if the attempted cracker knows your knock sequence is exactly 10 ports long. Add or subtract a couple steps from the sequence, and the number of possibilities increases factorially.
That's why you always hear about Muslim terrorists and Islamic extremists, and not about Christian, scientologist, Jewish, or any other type
Check out the U.S. State Department's List of Known Terrorist Organizations. See how many of them are identified as Islamist? If a large percentage of media reporting about terrorism focuses on Islamist organizations, I suggest that it is simply because a similarly large percentage of terrorist acts are committed by those who call themselves Muslims.
I can hardly say there is a "slant" in "Big Media" is the reporting is statistically representative of what's actually going on in the world.
"Ten Technologies that are more or less obsolete in general use but still serve small niches better than newer technologies."
And does the author really think 14-kilobit-per-second modems! were a product of the early 1980's? We weren't lucky enough to get those until the mid-1990's. Maybe he's just LUCKY that he doesn't remember 110-baud acoustic couplers...
Or, you could order up a copy of the Mindcandy DVD, which has many of the classic (and more recent) PC demos in an easy-to-run video format.
Have you ever seen VirtualPC run on a Mac? I've seen instances where VPC is able to emulate code pretty close to the x86 equivalent speed.
The CPU instructions are no problem. It's emulating the peripheral hardware that's going to kill performance. Even if the video chip they put in the Xbox2 is backwards-compatible with the original, the PPC and x86 architectures are different enough that a substantial emulation layer will be required.
If you leave your car open and someone steals your car hifi, it's entirely your fault. (Go ask your insurance...)
Um, insurance policies do not carry force of law. If that car stereo thief gets caught, it's HIM that's going to jail, not you.
Were you stupid to leave your car unlocked? Probably so. Does it rise to the level of criminal liability? Of course not.
"proof that hackers aren't necessarily smart."
Then they shouldn't be called a hacker
This vocabulary debate has been going on for what, 25 years now?
Let it go. The Jargon File definition is deprecated, the word does mean "one who misuses computers" in common parlance.
Considering every machine at the lab has a hostname with a .gov suffix
Assuming every machine at the lab was assigned a globally-visible hostname, that is. Is there really any reason why referencing workstations solely by IP address wouldn't be sufficient from them?
Is there anything good inside of you? If there is, I really wanna know.
Is there anything
Good inside of you?
If there is, I really wanna
Know
Is there...?
What's with the x86- and Linux-centric approach?
Well, if you don't center the benchmarks on SOME common ground (as much as possible), the resulting comparisons will be meaningless.
Say you decided to benchmark OS X on an Xserve against RedHat Linux on an Athlon. If the Apple scores better, was it because the OS is better, or because the hardware is better? There's no way of knowing.
Perhaps, for Microsoft, this would simply be a cost of doing business.
It would be an AVOIDABLE cost of doing business. Complying with the law would mean they would not have to have this expense, now or in the future.
Bill Gates has taught the world well... Build on the hype, sell on the hype, deliver later what they thought they already had.
That kind of marketing practice has existed nearly as long as marketing itself.
Name-dropping Gates just makes you look like you're karma-whoring. GRR, MICROSOFT BAD!
One thing I've always wanted to see on a cell phone: An LED flashlight.
My Hiptop (aka T-Mobile Sidekick) has a high-intensity LED that can be used as a flashlight (Menu-F from the Jump screen). Ends up kind of pinkish and diffused because of the hardware design though.
an XMPP session is just a pair of XML documents (one going in each direction).
Terrible design.
1 - Makes it harder than necessary to reconcile messages going in one direction with messages going the other. How much work does it take to display a log of both sides of a conversation?
2 - Doesn't scale well from 2-way communications to 3-way, 4-way, n-way communications.
3 - If a session gets terminated prematurely, you've got a partial XML document. Which won't validate.
Messages can be encapsulated in XML. Sessions should not.
i design web sites for a living. there's nothing worse than getting a web site looking just the way you want, then running a W3C CSS and HTML validator and having everything check out 100 percent. ...then to check the site with IE. holy crap
Your process is broken. You should be coding from the start so that your pages look good in the browsers actually in use, non in some theoretical ideal browser that the W3C would like to see.
Official standards are nice, but ad-hoc standards are what the world actually runs on. Very few of us are in a position to tell 80+% of our user base is wrong... are you?
> Doesn't that fact that it is acting as the anchor
> of the link make it semantically significant?
Yes, but not unique enough to warrant an HTML tag all of its own.
<span href="http://whatever">linked text</span> is semantically identical to the way we usually use the A tag.
Or will fat binaries that can execute in x86, x86-64 Intel and x86-64 AMD be necessary?
If you have the source: why not make a different binary for each platform and let your compiler worry about it?
If you don't have the source: why not demand delivery of a separate binary for each platform and let their compiler worry about it?
that is not harmful or illegal unless they actually misslead or confuse the public that they are Google.
/.OO.LE/]
What I'm saying is that there's a good chance their site DOES confuse the public. Yeah okay sure they have a casual "we are not affiliated" notice at the foot of the page, but how many search engines do you know of that have an "I'm feeling lucky!" button?
Have you ever seen a "Chavrolet" automobile? Or eaten at a "MacRonald's" fast food restaurant? Or seen "Ponosonic" electronics for sale anywhere other than a grey-market bazaar? In practice, the bar for trademark infringement is lower than you seem to think.
[list of registered trademarks matching
These are all fine and good, but do any of these trademarks pertain to computer search engines?
If you look at each argument in isolation from all the rest, yeah, the two aren't identical in any one way. But it's the COMBINATION of ALL the similarities -- that they have a similar name as Google, that they're offering a similar product to Google, that their site looks and feels similar to Google's -- that's going to bite them.
Not sure how widely known this is, but Comcast is a Microsoft company.
Um, no.
Microsoft also invested $150 million in Apple a few years ago... does that mean when you buy a G5 or iPod you're buying a Microsoft product?
So now they can claim ownership of "doodle.com", "poodle.com", etc.?
No. Not ownership. But if someone put up a site at doodle.com that was primarily a search engine, I think an intent to profit off of a similarity to Google's name and reputation would be quite likely.
How about "similar sounding" names, like "frugal", "luger", etc.?
Note that the latter is already a trademark[...]
And a variant spelling of the former ("Froogle") is already a trademark too -- belonging to Google.
If someone can deduce that Froogle is a service provided by Google, why shouldn't they assume the same of Booble?
the domain names are entirely different
If by "entirely different" they mean "80% identical", then I guess they have a point...
?oo?le.com
lets call it $200US total cost ... So, your point was?
Yes, the point. $200 is how much it cost for you to fix one infected machine. For a company with 400 employees, let's say there's 400 workstations and 50 servers. If they all get infected, that's $90,000 to clean them all. Even if only half the systems are affected, that's $45,000 -- pretty close to what the article quotes.
Bill Gates would have had to write software that was somewhat reliable.
Are you saying Altair BASIC 1.0 wasn't reliable?
I also remember some users back then thinking it would work the same in 95 as in NT, since both systems' GUI looked so similar.
You mean it didn't?
In NT-based systems, pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del during a session brings up the Task Manager window. In 95-based systems, it brings up a simpler window that just has a process list and halt/reboot/logout buttons. The specifics are different, but the general idea is the same.
Of course, most of the time if an app died under 95 the system would be so hosed that your key combo would be met instead by a BSOD or a total lockup, but...