Why does this thing seem like it took him 30 seconds to whip out?
I mean talk about content free, not to mention completely unresearched.
"I have the feeling theres, like, this sting or something, whoa."
"Like those kiddie porn rings, yah they stopped those, dude, all right!"
"No operating system is, like, invulnerable, like."
"OMG! Like there was this one dude, he like, tried to telnet to my machine, but fortunately it was a windows box, and thats, like, secure, because i have this firewall and stuff and doesn't let people telnet like into it."
Another GREAT article from that bastion of cluelessness that is Dvorak. God, if it wasn't for journalists like him, how WOULD we get our mass-market news?
My dad was on this project (as well as part of the team that did all the original JPL Pioneer launches, and all of the ranging/navigation software).
I'm posting for him because he doesn't want to get mail from "you cranks" and refuses to believe that Anonymous is anonymous.
If you want to do your poor old pops a favour, tell them you pops is A. S. Liu, one of Anderson's co-investigators along with Phil Laing. Both Phil and I think the effect is caused by minute gas leaks from the hydrozine thrusters that control Pio. 10 attitude. It is difficult to get an exact proof because the engineering details and engineers have long disappeared. This effect has been seen on every one of JPL spacecrafts and just by Occam's razor principle, a gas leak is the most likely explanation, as they all have the same attitude systems.
Pio 11 is just a twin of Pio 10 and should (and do) show similar (but not identical) behavior. Ulysses orbit is so badly messed up because the nutation dampers are gone and JPL is constantly firing atttitude control jets to compensate. Galileio did not go far enough out of the solar system (only 5 AUs) so that we could not separate the small force with solar radiation effects. (Pio 10 and 11 are so far out that solar radiation effects are effectively gone.)
I have read only up to the NT article. If you actually bothered to read it, you would see that its not exactly geared towards the skript kiddie.
As a matter of fact phrack has ALWAYS demeaned and derided skript kiddies. A quick peek at the flame-ridden, mean-spirited "Loopback" section will tell you this. Sure, maybe it smacks of hypocrisy to you, but the fact remains - it has never been an exhaustive "mini-cracking howto" for dummies.
I'm guessing when it comes to cracking, you have as much actual computing knowledge as a kiddie. Given that premise, I offer you a challenge.
I will put up an NT machine on the Internet, and using the NT article (and absolutely NO knowledge of NT or x86 assembler) you will crack it.
Sound fair?
And as far as "respectable" goes, where do you think 90% of the stuff from CERT comes from? Hint: it is not from "respectable" corporations like Microsoft who audit their own software. They have no incentive to reveal how bad or insecure their (closed) code is. It is not from "respectable" programmers (like me), who need to actually get their code working. Yes, it is not from skript kiddies either, but there is a happy medium, and that is the marginally sociopathic, intelligent, curious group of computer geeks who think cracking is fun.
You may not respect them, because they seem immature and at best amoral. You may not respect them because they do illegal things. You may not respect them simply because you dislike them, but the fact remains, THEY are the ones finding security problems with NT and Linux, not Microsoft, not Red Hat, and certainly not people like you (or even me) who find finding and writing cracks and exploits personally distasteful.
For all these reasons I submit that announcements like this DO belong on Slashdot.
I agree whole heartedly with all your comments wrt PSOS. We've gone through the exact same headaches as you described. PSOS is a nice, solid, well engineered kernel. It is small, and much less complex (albeit less feature rich) than some of its competitors, like WindRiver's vxworks. What is BAD about it is their draconian license polic - per "instance" royalties, and a LARGE entry cost, not to mention the legally non-reverse-engineerable binary kernel itself. Interestingly enough, the compiler of choice for the i960 (our old platform) was Intel's ctools (their free hack of gcc). The rest of PSOS's targets all required payware (read: per seat, lmgrd-guarded licenses), as did their debugger.
Also, the core was a complete black box (binary) with a whole TON of hooks into it so you could tweak it for your application.
Tech support was a nightmare.. Getting even the most rudimentary technical information from them usually required 3 weeks and an NDA or two (like their task database structures in UN-documented.h files!)
We have since decided to drop them for new projects and pretty much demand that vendors meet two requirements.
1) no royalties 2) ALL source code
For those of you who doubt that the efforts of the FSF and those OpenSource wackos made any diferrence, you really have no clue.
The state of embedded OS devel is a strange one. Most engineers that do this kind of design and coding are used to running their little debugger and compiler on their win95 machine. There is a growing segment of this market, however, that understands the big picture, and is willing to learn a bit about UNIX, mainly because of one thing: TCP/IP. This is remarkable, honest. No engineer in his right mind would be satisfied with what MS tells him networking is, givin the history of BSD sockets, and the fact that even the first winsock stack was not actually written by MS (seeing as they thought TCP/IP was a toy).
Now that just about every embedded device can (and will eventually) be network aware, the feature space of these embedded OS's have much more in common with UNIX than they do their ROM-BIOS ancestors of lore. What does this mean? Now that most people's first UNIX experience is likely to involve Linux, they are also likely to be exposed to what OpenSource REALLY is - NOT corporations trying to get a free ride from random outside hobbiest/programmers, but a cooperative effort designed to reduce the amout of time duplicating somebody ELSE's efforts.
How? By a)demanding source from the vendor (it may not be OSS, it may be subject to NDA, but that part is irrelevant so far) and b) actually cooperating with others doing similar work on similar platforms.
Once the uninitiated engineer first discovers what its like to exchange source level bug fixes with other engineers, there is no going back, no matter how dense or MS centric they may be.
One final comment. People on slashdot like to spout endlessly about "oo lets just put Linux on the toaster". They dont realize what it takes to get a totally foriegn, customised, embedded system running. You cant take ANYTHING for granted. You have no fixed memory map. You have no display, let alone debugged serial drivers. Your DRAM controller may be completely non functional. In this realm, products like PSOS and vxworks shine.
Linux is PERFECT for embedded applications, but somebody has to do the booting. If the target is a brand new mboard from ASUS, with a known memory map, PCI controller, etc. AND there about 10,000 people all working at booting it and fixing bugs, great, linux is trivial.
But if my target is some weird iron featuring the latest funky embedded microprossesor from motorola, there is zero chance of linux being ported to my target by somebody else, least of all motorola themselves. And the in-house R&D guys dont want to spend 4 months getting the OS booted, and then wondering how reliable the whole thing is in the end.
IBM's release of the PowerPC reference design may change this, since it should be easily embeddable given the fact that both IBM and mot have some truly excellent embeeded PPC cpus coming out.
BUT! I need the damn boot roms for the friggen evaluation boards, or its no sale, and I have to shell out the bucks to ISI or Windriver for their environment.
I went back there the other day. Was very depressed to see how quiet it was. Not like back in my day, when men were men, and the sheep were scared.
Now its like a graveyard
Re:I hope they do better than /.
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 1
Aha! UP FOR 71 DAYS! It must be full of security holes;-)
Re:I hope they do better than /.
on
911 Calls Linux
·
· Score: 2
Since you are obviously an NT advocate, and this is slashdot, I'm not going to spare the rod since I assume you know what you are in for here.
How is/.'s stability related to the linux kernel?
90% of the time, when I have problems connecting to slashdot, it's either the ad banner garbage, or the network itself is bad, or there is an actual problem with Slashdot's software.
Which brings me to your second point. Doing anything even remotely similar to slashdot on an NT system is basically impossible. It simply doesn't have the flexibility.
If/. is unstable, don't blame Linux, blame Rob;P
Finally that bit about 2.2 tells me what I already know: you are full of it, and are clearly striving to give us the appearance that you know what you are talking about. 2.0.30+ was (and arguablly still is) probably more stable than most 2.2.x releases so far. The fact that 2.2.x itself is far more stable than any MS OS (any version, throughout all of MS's history) by orders of magnitude should tell you something.
You clearly have the whole thing backwards anyway. Bleeding edge kernels always have two things in common: extra features, at cost of stability. The OSS model NEVER suggests you regularly update mission critical installations. However, things like slashdot, and my home machine, are hardly critical; I re-install kernels as they come out, anyway. I imagine Rob is constantly twiddling with slashdot itself, and not just a "development" mirror machine.
Which brings me to the question of what long uptimes mean. A long uptime means to ME that a) the system is stable and doesn't crash and b) I dont have to reboot it everytime i change something unrelated to having to reboot (like installing a.dll.. hint hint).
Your comment about security makes absolutely no sense, assuming the admin knows what he's doing.
How, exactly, is uptime related to the system's security? I must have missed something. Are you telling me that because NT crashes 3 times a week its secure? Does a long uptime indicate that the admin is too lazy to apply patches, or that the OS vendor hasn't supplied patches? Is the latter because the OS doesn't need patches, or because the vendor doesn't even bother to develop and then release timely patches?
I can only conclude that you are hinting that the admins of boxes with long uptimes are idiots who refuse to update. I agree. They are idiots, but don't forget that to them, having a box that stays up for more than 3 days is a miracle, thanks to MS training everybody that rebooting fixes everything.
Conventional journalism as "reliable".
on
Wired on Slashdot
·
· Score: 3
It amazes me that conventional journalists have the gall to repeat this mantra over and over again. Every single time the "conventional" news media covers a story that I, or a good friend, have personal knowledge of, they invariably screw it up and add some bizzare audience grabbing spin to it. EVERY TIME. And this isn't just for "nerd" or technical news. Anything is fair game.
It makes you wonder about the rest of the "honest", "reliable", "unbiased" journalism they churn out that you don't have a way to independantly verify. Sure, its not all malicious and/or self serving munging of the news, but anything that can't be attributed to a conspiracy can certainly be attributed to plain laziness.
And speaking of "un-biased" journalism... as long as the medium, or reporter, or whatever at LEAST has their "bias" out in the open, I know exactly what I'm in for. Stories that have that "I'm totally unbiased, just reporting the facts because its my job" style invariably give me the heebie jeebies.
Bring on the marshmallows while they burn this poor slob at the cross! Ya ain't seen nothin like this since Salem and, more recently, those non-stop laugh-riot KKK barbecues!
You KNOW it can't be Microsoft's fault that their OS and mailers are completely insecure, since they are super successful and make lots of money.
I love AMERICA! Isn't that the American dream? To make enough money that you are invincible?
The whole situation is stupid. I LIKE the idea of putting automatic meters in your speedometer that automatically give you a violation when you break the speed limit.
For once maybe people will see how completely ludicrous the system is. I mean, the speed limit in CA is 65mph, and yet 99% of all traffic is over that. Cop rolls down on to the freeway. He picks off cars at random. Or maybe not. Maybe he chooses arbitrarily. Maybe he chooses you because of the color of your car. Or the color of your skin. The point is, he can pull over ANYBODY because nobody is driving fucking 65mph. Its the stupidest thing ever.
Enforce the stupid laws you make, and maybe we won't have so many stupid laws.
I see so damn many flames here, and everybody is actually DEFENDING the pile of worthless dung that is MTV and their pathetic attempts at making a "real show" with "real people" all while manipulating the viewer with trite, contrived, probably scripted situations even less compelling than the worst sitcom.
As a human-as-moron study, the "Real World" does provide insight into the level of stupidity of the average human.. not just those starring on the "Real World", but also the people who find it "insightful" and "helpful" to those in need of guidance into adulthood.
My question to Abe: Are you, too, such a construct, carefully tailored as the token "geek" who has been traditionally underrepresented (or if present, outright MIS represented by films like Hacker) simply to appeal to a part of the 18-25 market feeling the most disenfranchised by the system?
If the answer is truely yes, I don't expect you to say so, but at least if you say no, give us direct evidence that this whole thing is NOT an MTV setup.
If you genuinely did take advantage of MTV, I bow to you, and I frankly don't care if you are a "real" hax0r or not. Social engineering is far more challenging then skript cracking some obscure site and replacing their web page with porn banners.
Oh yah? Well your argument is deleted.. urm deactivated.. no wait... ah never mind.
Did you already forget a car is not information?
Put down that crack pipe, sonny.
The whole argument is moot. Shut down all the morons stupid enough to run public web sites. It won't make any real difference. The cat is out of the bag, boys. Its just bits; put your pants back on and take a deep breath.
If this Altair has a copy of Bill's (well, probably Paul Allen's... its not as if Bill can code is way out of a paper bag) original BASIC interpreter, Mr. Gates should certainly take legal action, as it is "his" code, and not all those meddling, communistic, thieving hobbiests'.
[VB is] Very useful for people who have lives (like myself). I'm very excited.
AP, Silicon Valley - A new study released today finds that people who say they have lives are more likely to use VB. "I like to, like, drink and stuff and hit on chicks, dude" explains Biff S. "and I like and use VB". Others who don't identify themselves with the type of people who "have lives", say they hate VB. "I would rather play AD&D and read fantasy novels than use VB" declares the geeky, pimply-nosed, socially maladjusted Melvin W.
Experts in the field claim that VB is the clear winner in the battle for the "moron" mindshare. "They may not be bright, but they have a lot of money to spend on 'for Dummies' books," says Dr. Brill E. Yant, the author of the ground breaking study. "However, we have noticed a large disparity in the amount of 'life' people tend to think they have when contrasted with an actual 'amount of life metric' measurement taken in a separate study," continued Dr. Yant, "Cleary, a more detailed study correlating these two effects is in order."
Sign me up! Where do I send my check? WAIT! I need that money for my lobotomy. How else can I free myself from the chains of actual intellect and rigorous, logical thought, not to mention all that useless education?
Wishing he was a drooling imbecile (albeit a happy one) with the brand-spankin-new open mind,
Given that you have an omnipotent, omnescient being doing all the work, anybody can easily see that the earth can be 6000 years old, despite any evidence to the contrary. How? Simple. God created everything in-situ 6000 years ago, fossil records, decayed carbon isotope ratios, meteor impact evidence, geological drift stress fractures, everything. Of course, by this logic, the Earth could have been created JUST NOW.
As in, right now, including your memory of reading the previous paragraph.
Gee, it must be nice to have God to explain everything for you folks. Zero thought required. How marvelously convenient.
"Dad, how does a car work?" "God makes it go."
I don't believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in the separation of church and science. Believe anything you want, but trust me, God is of absolutely no use in research or just about anything technical.
Eventually they bring them to the masses, but its usually 5 years or so too late. Sure they dominate the market, but it's not the type of market that Linux or Unix is in. It's mom and pop. It's the Luddite/curmudgeon who isn't interested in the latest shiny technology.
By the time MS figures out how to build a successful ISP (and remember, this is their SECOND try), most of the *nix elitest guru types will have already installed a DSL or T1 in their home office. The rest will be college students on dorm room ethernet connections. It is very unlikely that MS will have any impact on these installations, no matter what "added value" they put on their 56k dialup POPs.
Prodigy, AOL, and Compuserve ALL tried this, and they couldn't even compete with bare bones ISP that were doing pure PPP with no extra gimmicks for TWICE the cost.
Again, this is a flawed argument. I see it over and over again and its really starting to bug me. The GPL only protects things _against_ copyrights. It depends on copyrights to do this, but the whole purpose is to prevent somebody from copying the source and RELICENSING it. THIS is what a copyright does. If there were no copyrights the GPL would not be necessary, since the "copy" of the "GPL'ed" could be again LEGALLY copied, and resubmitted into the public domain.
For those of you who like to flame GNU/FSF (even if you begrudgingly admit gcc/egcs is just ok), try to sit down at a vanilla Solaris box. Then send me a/bin/sh script that does the same thing as cp -avpu.
Your example is one of an ego driven artist then, instead of one driven by greed.
I, for one, would be glad if my ideas spread the planet. I don't care that anybody knows that they are mine. I don't care if some other self-centered, ego-maniacal, attention-craving maggot claims that its "his" idea. If its a good idea, knowing that somebody else can use it and make their life better is all i need.
Remember, _I_ can still use my original idea for my own gain as well.
This is why information is different from a material good. You can't stop its spread, so stop trying. Find another way to make a living than depending on government handouts/welfare via copyright/IP/patent law, because if you dont, you will find yourself on the street in short order.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does this thing seem like it took him 30 seconds to whip out?
I mean talk about content free, not to mention completely unresearched.
"I have the feeling theres, like, this sting or something, whoa."
"Like those kiddie porn rings, yah they stopped those, dude, all right!"
"No operating system is, like, invulnerable, like."
"OMG! Like there was this one dude, he like, tried to telnet to my machine, but fortunately it was a windows box, and thats, like, secure, because i have this firewall and stuff and doesn't let people telnet like into it."
Another GREAT article from that bastion of cluelessness that is Dvorak. God, if it wasn't for journalists like him, how WOULD we get our mass-market news?
bah. They properly embraced and extended RTSP so completely that their "developers" "open" SDK is totally useless...
No, I'm not complaining that real audio isn't open source. But why the hell can't I homebrew my own friggen rtsp streamer? So much for standards.
A big "fuck you" to real audio from me.
I'm posting for him because he doesn't want to get mail from "you cranks" and refuses to believe that Anonymous is anonymous.
If you want to do your poor old pops a favour, tell them you pops is A. S. Liu, one of Anderson's co-investigators along with Phil Laing. Both Phil and I think the effect is caused by minute gas leaks from the hydrozine thrusters that control Pio. 10 attitude. It is difficult to get an exact proof because the engineering details and engineers have long disappeared. This effect has been seen on every one of JPL spacecrafts and just by Occam's razor principle, a gas leak is the most likely explanation, as they all have the same attitude systems.
Pio 11 is just a twin of Pio 10 and should (and do) show similar (but not identical) behavior. Ulysses orbit is so badly messed up because the nutation dampers are gone and JPL is constantly firing atttitude control jets to compensate. Galileio did not go far enough out of the solar system (only 5 AUs) so that we could not separate the small force with solar radiation effects. (Pio 10 and 11 are so far out that solar radiation effects are effectively gone.)
try
[a-zA-Z0-9\.]+.really.fuckingsucks.net
eg.
Bill Gates
I have read only up to the NT article. If you actually bothered to read it, you would see that its not exactly geared towards the skript kiddie.
As a matter of fact phrack has ALWAYS demeaned and derided skript kiddies. A quick peek at the flame-ridden, mean-spirited "Loopback" section will tell you this. Sure, maybe it smacks of hypocrisy to you, but the fact remains - it has never been an exhaustive "mini-cracking howto" for dummies.
I'm guessing when it comes to cracking, you have as much actual computing knowledge as a kiddie. Given that premise, I offer you a challenge.
I will put up an NT machine on the Internet, and using the NT article (and absolutely NO knowledge of NT or x86 assembler) you will crack it.
Sound fair?
And as far as "respectable" goes, where do you think 90% of the stuff from CERT comes from? Hint: it is not from "respectable" corporations like Microsoft who audit their own software. They have no incentive to reveal how bad or insecure their (closed) code is. It is not from "respectable" programmers (like me), who need to actually get their code working. Yes, it is not from skript kiddies either, but there is a happy medium, and that is the marginally sociopathic, intelligent, curious group of computer geeks who think cracking is fun.
You may not respect them, because they seem immature and at best amoral. You may not respect them because they do illegal things. You may not respect them simply because you dislike them, but the fact remains, THEY are the ones finding security problems with NT and Linux, not Microsoft, not Red Hat, and certainly not people like you (or even me) who find finding and writing cracks and exploits personally distasteful.
For all these reasons I submit that announcements like this DO belong on Slashdot.
I agree whole heartedly with all your comments wrt PSOS. We've gone through the exact same headaches as you described. PSOS is a nice, solid, well engineered kernel. It is small, and much less complex (albeit less feature rich) than some of its competitors, like WindRiver's vxworks. What is BAD about it is their draconian license polic - per "instance" royalties, and a LARGE entry cost, not to mention the legally non-reverse-engineerable binary kernel itself. Interestingly enough, the compiler of choice for the i960 (our old platform) was Intel's ctools (their free hack of gcc). The rest of PSOS's targets all required payware (read: per seat, lmgrd-guarded licenses), as did their debugger.
.h files!)
Also, the core was a complete black box (binary) with a whole TON of hooks into it so you could tweak it for your application.
Tech support was a nightmare.. Getting even the most rudimentary technical information from them usually required 3 weeks and an NDA or two (like their task database structures in UN-documented
We have since decided to drop them for new projects and pretty much demand that vendors meet two requirements.
1) no royalties
2) ALL source code
For those of you who doubt that the efforts of the FSF and those OpenSource wackos made any diferrence, you really have no clue.
The state of embedded OS devel is a strange one. Most engineers that do this kind of design and coding are used to running their little debugger and compiler on their win95 machine. There is a growing segment of this market, however, that understands the big picture, and is willing to learn a bit about UNIX, mainly because of one thing: TCP/IP. This is remarkable, honest. No engineer in his right mind would be satisfied with what MS tells him networking is, givin the history of BSD sockets, and the fact that even the first winsock stack was not actually written by MS (seeing as they thought TCP/IP was a toy).
Now that just about every embedded device can (and will eventually) be network aware, the feature space of these embedded OS's have much more in common with UNIX than they do their ROM-BIOS ancestors of lore. What does this mean? Now that most people's first UNIX experience is likely to involve Linux, they are also likely to be exposed to what OpenSource REALLY is - NOT corporations trying to get a free ride from random outside hobbiest/programmers, but a cooperative effort designed to reduce the amout of time duplicating somebody ELSE's efforts.
How? By a)demanding source from the vendor (it may not be OSS, it may be subject to NDA, but that part is irrelevant so far) and b) actually cooperating with others doing similar work on similar platforms.
Once the uninitiated engineer first discovers what its like to exchange source level bug fixes with other engineers, there is no going back, no matter how dense or MS centric they may be.
One final comment. People on slashdot like to spout endlessly about "oo lets just put Linux on the toaster". They dont realize what it takes to get a totally foriegn, customised, embedded system running. You cant take ANYTHING for granted. You have no fixed memory map. You have no display, let alone debugged serial drivers. Your DRAM controller may be completely non functional. In this realm, products like PSOS and vxworks shine.
Linux is PERFECT for embedded applications, but somebody has to do the booting. If the target is a brand new mboard from ASUS, with a known memory map, PCI controller, etc. AND there about 10,000 people all working at booting it and fixing bugs, great, linux is trivial.
But if my target is some weird iron featuring the latest funky embedded microprossesor from motorola, there is zero chance of linux being ported to my target by somebody else, least of all motorola themselves. And the in-house R&D guys dont want to spend 4 months getting the OS booted, and then wondering how reliable the whole thing is in the end.
IBM's release of the PowerPC reference design may change this, since it should be easily embeddable given the fact that both IBM and mot have some truly excellent embeeded PPC cpus coming out.
BUT! I need the damn boot roms for the friggen evaluation boards, or its no sale, and I have to shell out the bucks to ISI or Windriver for their environment.
DEI, FIEF
I went back there the other day. Was very depressed to see how quiet it was. Not like back in my day, when men were men, and the sheep were scared.
Now its like a graveyard
Aha! UP FOR 71 DAYS! It must be full of security holes ;-)
Since you are obviously an NT advocate, and this is slashdot, I'm not going to spare the rod since I assume you know what you are in for here.
/.'s stability related to the linux kernel?
/. is unstable, don't blame Linux, blame Rob ;P
.dll.. hint hint).
How is
90% of the time, when I have problems connecting to slashdot, it's either the ad banner garbage, or the network itself is bad, or there is an actual problem with Slashdot's software.
Which brings me to your second point. Doing anything even remotely similar to slashdot on an NT system is basically impossible. It simply doesn't have the flexibility.
If
Finally that bit about 2.2 tells me what I already know: you are full of it, and are clearly striving to give us the appearance that you know what you are talking about. 2.0.30+ was (and arguablly still is) probably more stable than most 2.2.x releases so far. The fact that 2.2.x itself is far more stable than any MS OS (any version, throughout all of MS's history) by orders of magnitude should tell you something.
You clearly have the whole thing backwards anyway. Bleeding edge kernels always have two things in common: extra features, at cost of stability. The OSS model NEVER suggests you regularly update mission critical installations. However, things like slashdot, and my home machine, are hardly critical; I re-install kernels as they come out, anyway. I imagine Rob is constantly twiddling with slashdot itself, and not just a "development" mirror machine.
Which brings me to the question of what long uptimes mean. A long uptime means to ME that a) the system is stable and doesn't crash and b) I dont have to reboot it everytime i change something unrelated to having to reboot (like installing a
Your comment about security makes absolutely no sense, assuming the admin knows what he's doing.
How, exactly, is uptime related to the system's security? I must have missed something. Are you telling me that because NT crashes 3 times a week its secure? Does a long uptime indicate that the admin is too lazy to apply patches, or that the OS vendor hasn't supplied patches? Is the latter because the OS doesn't need patches, or because the vendor doesn't even bother to develop and then release timely patches?
I can only conclude that you are hinting that the admins of boxes with long uptimes are idiots who refuse to update. I agree. They are idiots, but don't forget that to them, having a box that stays up for more than 3 days is a miracle, thanks to MS training everybody that rebooting fixes everything.
IOS isn't exactly an embedded toaster OS.
It amazes me that conventional journalists have the gall to repeat this mantra over and over again. Every single time the "conventional" news media covers a story that I, or a good friend, have personal knowledge of, they invariably screw it up and add some bizzare audience grabbing spin to it. EVERY TIME. And this isn't just for "nerd" or technical news. Anything is fair game.
It makes you wonder about the rest of the "honest", "reliable", "unbiased" journalism they churn out that you don't have a way to independantly verify. Sure, its not all malicious and/or self serving munging of the news, but anything that can't be attributed to a conspiracy can certainly be attributed to plain laziness.
And speaking of "un-biased" journalism... as long as the medium, or reporter, or whatever at LEAST has their "bias" out in the open, I know exactly what I'm in for. Stories that have that "I'm totally unbiased, just reporting the facts because its my job" style invariably give me the heebie jeebies.
He really should have checked these RFCs first to make sure he's not re-inventing the wheel.
Bring on the marshmallows while they burn this poor slob at the cross! Ya ain't seen nothin like this since Salem and, more recently, those non-stop laugh-riot KKK barbecues!
You KNOW it can't be Microsoft's fault that their OS and mailers are completely insecure, since they are super successful and make lots of money.
I love AMERICA! Isn't that the American dream? To make enough money that you are invincible?
The whole situation is stupid. I LIKE the idea of putting automatic meters in your speedometer that automatically give you a violation when you break the speed limit.
For once maybe people will see how completely ludicrous the system is. I mean, the speed limit in CA is 65mph, and yet 99% of all traffic is over that. Cop rolls down on to the freeway. He picks off cars at random. Or maybe not. Maybe he chooses arbitrarily. Maybe he chooses you because of the color of your car. Or the color of your skin. The point is, he can pull over ANYBODY because nobody is driving fucking 65mph. Its the stupidest thing ever.
Enforce the stupid laws you make, and maybe we won't have so many stupid laws.
Sigh.
I see so damn many flames here, and everybody is actually DEFENDING the pile of worthless dung that is MTV and their pathetic attempts at making a "real show" with "real people" all while manipulating the viewer with trite, contrived, probably scripted situations even less compelling than the worst sitcom.
As a human-as-moron study, the "Real World" does provide insight into the level of stupidity of the average human.. not just those starring on the "Real World", but also the people who find it "insightful" and "helpful" to those in need of guidance into adulthood.
My question to Abe:
Are you, too, such a construct, carefully tailored as the token "geek" who has been traditionally underrepresented (or if present, outright MIS represented by films like Hacker) simply to appeal to a part of the 18-25 market feeling the most disenfranchised by the system?
If the answer is truely yes, I don't expect you to say so, but at least if you say no, give us direct evidence that this whole thing is NOT an MTV setup.
If you genuinely did take advantage of MTV, I bow to you, and I frankly don't care if you are a "real" hax0r or not. Social engineering is far more challenging then skript cracking some obscure site and replacing their web page with porn banners.
Defunct?
Oh yah? Well your argument is deleted.. urm deactivated.. no wait... ah never mind.
Did you already forget a car is not information?
Put down that crack pipe, sonny.
The whole argument is moot. Shut down all the morons stupid enough to run public web sites. It won't make any real difference. The cat is out of the bag, boys. Its just bits; put your pants back on and take a deep breath.
If this Altair has a copy of Bill's (well, probably Paul Allen's ... its not as if Bill can code is way out of a paper bag) original BASIC interpreter, Mr. Gates should certainly take legal action, as it is "his" code, and not all those meddling, communistic, thieving hobbiests'.
AP, Silicon Valley - A new study released today finds that people who say they have lives are more likely to use VB. "I like to, like, drink and stuff and hit on chicks, dude" explains Biff S. "and I like and use VB". Others who don't identify themselves with the type of people who "have lives", say they hate VB. "I would rather play AD&D and read fantasy novels than use VB" declares the geeky, pimply-nosed, socially maladjusted Melvin W.
Experts in the field claim that VB is the clear winner in the battle for the "moron" mindshare. "They may not be bright, but they have a lot of money to spend on 'for Dummies' books," says Dr. Brill E. Yant, the author of the ground breaking study. "However, we have noticed a large disparity in the amount of 'life' people tend to think they have when contrasted with an actual 'amount of life metric' measurement taken in a separate study," continued Dr. Yant, "Cleary, a more detailed study correlating these two effects is in order."
You are my Personal Jesus(TM), dude.
Sign me up! Where do I send my check? WAIT! I need that money for my lobotomy. How else can I free myself from the chains of actual intellect and rigorous, logical thought, not to mention all that useless education?
Wishing he was a drooling imbecile (albeit a happy one) with the brand-spankin-new open mind,
-- a loyal Tuesdayism convert
Halleluyah, my new BROTHER!
Given that you have an omnipotent, omnescient being doing all the work, anybody can easily see that the earth can be 6000 years old, despite any evidence to the contrary. How? Simple. God created everything in-situ 6000 years ago, fossil records, decayed carbon isotope ratios, meteor impact evidence, geological drift stress fractures, everything. Of course, by this logic, the Earth could have been created JUST NOW.
As in, right now, including your memory of reading the previous paragraph.
Gee, it must be nice to have God to explain everything for you folks. Zero thought required. How marvelously convenient.
"Dad, how does a car work?" "God makes it go."
I don't believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in the separation of church and science. Believe anything you want, but trust me, God is of absolutely no use in research or just about anything technical.
I'm usually pretty cynical and pessimistic about the state of things, but I'm in a good mood today, so here it goes.
MS has historically been FAR behind in these types of things.
TCP/IP stack? Whats that?
File sharing? Whats that?
E-mail? Whats that?
Internet? Whats that?
Remote Admin? Whats that?
Eventually they bring them to the masses, but its usually 5 years or so too late. Sure they dominate the market, but it's not the type of market that Linux or Unix is in. It's mom and pop. It's the Luddite/curmudgeon who isn't interested in the latest shiny technology.
By the time MS figures out how to build a successful ISP (and remember, this is their SECOND try), most of the *nix elitest guru types will have already installed a DSL or T1 in their home office. The rest will be college students on dorm room ethernet connections. It is very unlikely that MS will have any impact on these installations, no matter what "added value" they put on their 56k dialup POPs.
Prodigy, AOL, and Compuserve ALL tried this, and they couldn't even compete with bare bones ISP that were doing pure PPP with no extra gimmicks for TWICE the cost.
Again, this is a flawed argument. I see it over and over again and its really starting to bug me. The GPL only protects things _against_ copyrights. It depends on copyrights to do this, but the whole purpose is to prevent somebody from copying the source and RELICENSING it. THIS is what a copyright does. If there were no copyrights the GPL would not be necessary, since the "copy" of the "GPL'ed" could be again LEGALLY copied, and resubmitted into the public domain.
If you can't compete, use patents and lawyers. Lots of them.
I'm so glad to see once again that patents and IP encourage innovation... [cough].
The conventional wisdom around here is "I like Linux and Solaris, but Solaris is a little more polished."
/bin?
/home/archive/foo.tar.gz ...
/home/archive ... fn d1 ... dn-1 dn
/bin/sh script that does the same thing as cp -avpu.
This may be true for the kernel and hardware, BUT:
Question for sysadmins who use both linux and solaris:
How long can you tolerate Solaris' standard environment before you break down and install GNU replacements for all the garbage in
Notice I'm NOT talking about X11Rx vs Openwin or Motif vs dt.
I'm talking nuts and bolts here.
# tar czvf .
tar: z: unknown option
Usage: tar {txruc}[vfbFXhiBelmopw[0-7]] [tapefile] [blocksize] [exclude-file] [-I include-file] files
#
ARGUH!!!
# cp -avpu .
/bin/cp: illegal option -- a
/bin/cp: illegal option -- v
/bin/cp: illegal option -- u
Usage: cp [-f] [-i] [-p] f1 f2
cp [-f] [-i] [-p] f1
cp -r|R [-f] [-i] [-p] d1
#
JESUS H FUCKING CHRIST
For those of you who like to flame GNU/FSF (even if you begrudgingly admit gcc/egcs is just ok), try to sit down at a vanilla Solaris box. Then send me a
Your example is one of an ego driven artist then, instead of one driven by greed.
I, for one, would be glad if my ideas spread the planet. I don't care that anybody knows that they are mine. I don't care if some other self-centered, ego-maniacal, attention-craving maggot claims that its "his" idea. If its a good idea, knowing that somebody else can use it and make their life better is all i need.
Remember, _I_ can still use my original idea for my own gain as well.
This is why information is different from a material good. You can't stop its spread, so stop trying. Find another way to make a living than depending on government handouts/welfare via copyright/IP/patent law, because if you dont, you will find yourself on the street in short order.