How are you going to compromise the SMTP daemon? If only the bind() syscall is handled as root, as well as mail delivery to each user, you won't be able to do much of anything.
You won't be able to replace the SMTP daemon, you won't be able to read anyone's mail, and you won't be able to modify anything.
Are you actually suggesting it's better to have ALL syscalls executed as root than just chosen ones? No matter what, more control over what is executed is good.
Obviously that should not lull programmers into getting sloppy... but it's yet another tool for them, and a good one.
Sure, those are the FreeBSD terms... but chroot has been around longer than FreeBSD, and the concept of a "chroot jail" did not originate with FreeBSD.
FreeBSD expanded on the idea and wrote jail(), which is indeed cool... but freebsd jail is a common term.
Optical & RF specify two regions of the EM spectrum.
When someone says RF that means it's between 3khz and 300Ghz.
We do not consider gamma rays to be RF. Nor do we consider visible light to be RF. Nor do we consider the FM radio in your car to be an 'optical receiver'
When dealing with data transmission, we speak in terms of bits per second, and G=1,000,000,000
Terms lik GBps and whatnot are 'made up' terms used by the computer world to try to sound smart. As soon as someone talks about anyhting other than bits per second, with standard metric prefixes (with standard metric meanings), it becomes ambiguous.
B meaning byte and b meaning bit are a made up convention that some people adhere to, but not an engineering standard, I don't believe.
And since when is it NOT Gbps? bps has been a standard data communications term for a LONG time.
What is your definition of lens? Visible light is nothing special... it's just the light we can see. Different materials are transaprent to diferent wavelengths, just as glass is transparent to visible light. By the same token, a lens can be made to focus just about any wavelength.
120Ghz is a lot more like visible light than your usual radio..
120Ghz is way up there... just about at the high end of what is generally considered the radio spectrum (then you get into infrared and such).
It's not about the financial guys "getting" it. Most financial guys I've met "get" it right away if you can show profit. In the past, that was harder to do. In the future, it will be easier. (to show that free software is viable)
Well.. actually.... They are contradicted; the difference in results between the two theories is just very, very small, so as to have no practical effect on everyday life.
They are still very, very real.
My original point was that when the media says "Einstein proved wrong" that makes them think his theory is totally wrong, ie: it's calculations meaningless... when in fact is is just a reinfement.... any future theory has to explain why the old theory seemed to work.
Or to put it differently, if we gave newton the theory of relativity, he could not experimentally verify the results anyway, he had no instruments precise enough to do so... and would probalby conclude that his simpler theories are true.
If I give you a closed box, and you have no idea what's in it, and tell you to calculate the density of the box... I don't have to specify the AVERAGE density of the box.
You get it's mass, and it's volume, and calculate.
Yes, but apache has had tons of advanced features added to it.. it may not be the FIRST webserver, but it has been #1 for a LONG time, in innovation.
INnovation does not necessarily mean you invented something.. but that you took the time to put somethign together because it might be useful.
Never on any system other than linux have we seen so many tools put together from so many different parts.. if tha'ts not innovation, I don't know what is.
When we say MS doesn't innovate.. it's not simply because they steal ideas... everyone does that.. that's how knowledge works.. it's because they wait for other companies to do something then BUY THE COMPANY or BUY THE TECHNOLOGY. Or use their power to smash anyone who is innovating something new.
Now I understand why the movie theater is always packed with a lineup around the block whenever a cool movie comes out. It's because nobody's going to the theater, and they are staying home to wait for the DVD.
You might be shocked to know just how much wired infrastructure it takes to provide cellular coverage in a modern city. I'm willing to bet it's more than most people imagine.. a lot more.
Cellular is not like "put up one antenna in town, and everyone gets access".. there are cell sites EVERYWHERE, and they are packed with gear.
It sounds like you are saying everything naturally tends to be in a stable orbit; this is not true.
Yes, for something that is in a stable orbit that wants to be in a further out stable orbit, it has to speed up. If it wants to be in a lower stable orbit, it has to slow down..but simply speeding up or slowing down will not ensure a stable orbit. If you are in a stable orbit, and you hit the gas, you will end up in an eliptical orbit. If you hit the brakes, you will end up in a decaying orbit.
Yes, but in the case of a black hole, we are using the event horizon to define the limit of the 'object' we are measuring.. because that's all we can do.
You can't call it infinitely dense, because the common notions of density and space/time cease to have meaning from your outside point of view.
The problem is, you can't say that. Ignoring those things you talk about means ignore the reason the black hole exists in the first place. You CANNOT be pulled back out, because the forces required to do so are infinite. From a relativistic point of view, the outside universe is not a reachable place. It's not there; the distance to it is infinite... the dinstances involved are not what they appear to the outside observer (so to speak) The rope would not pull throuth them. The rope would be stuck too, it's subjected to the same relativistic effects beyond a certain point.
For any given density, there exists a radius at which a ball of that density.... no.. that has to be wrong.
Had you said mass, yes, that would be true.. but density is mass per unit volume... a black hole is more 'dense' than a non-black hole of the same mass.
If something isn't dense enough to be a black hole, nothing of that density every will be, no matter how big or small.
They were not "incorrect"... they merely fail to describe all reality, as does every other theory we have.
Within the context of what newton and the world around him saw, and the speeds and masses they were working with, and the precision that was noticeable, his theories WERE true, just as einsteins were true until we found quantum behavior that seems to contradict it.
I hate it when people say "relativity is wrong" or "einstein was wrong". To them I say, go figure out how to make GPS work while ignoring the theory of relativity.
note he said "our physics" stop at the edge, and he's correct. We have no physics for what happens inside the event horizon.
You are mis-defining theory. in science, EVERYTHING is a theory. Yes, the black hole is a theoretical model, as we don't actually have one in a lab somewhere to analyze, and we can't take it apart and see what it's made of. But in that model, certain things are considered true...
OF COURSE relativity is not entirely correct in all scopes. As we don't yet have a universal physics model that can explain everything, NO THEORY IS ENTIRELY CORRECT.
Our theories are models that explain the universe we see within certian constraints. The theory of relativity is not wrong, there are just certain situations where there is a larger, more complex theory at work that only becomes evident in the very small, or whatnot.
Is it just me, or does it seem MS gets caught doing sneaky things when it comes to PR all the time? Things that would be EASY to avoid getting caught doing, even on a budget that is a fraction of theirs.
I have to wonder if they are not so blinded by their own success that they really don't see how the world outside microsoft operates?
I'm thinking of obviously faked videos used in trials, outright obvious lies about technology (as opposed to sneaky mis-truths)... stuff like this... fake grass-roots campaigns...
Weak dude, weak.
Re:so XFree86 = usage stattistics?
on
The End Of Minix?
·
· Score: 1
Well, generally "no users" means nobody is using it, so therefore it's dead.
Slashdot Mirror
How are you going to compromise the SMTP daemon? If only the bind() syscall is handled as root, as well as mail delivery to each user, you won't be able to do much of anything.
You won't be able to replace the SMTP daemon, you won't be able to read anyone's mail, and you won't be able to modify anything.
Are you actually suggesting it's better to have ALL syscalls executed as root than just chosen ones? No matter what, more control over what is executed is good.
Obviously that should not lull programmers into getting sloppy... but it's yet another tool for them, and a good one.
Most certificates have expiry dates so that the issuing companies can make more money selling you a new one.
Sure, those are the FreeBSD terms...
but chroot has been around longer than FreeBSD, and the concept of a "chroot jail" did not originate with FreeBSD.
FreeBSD expanded on the idea and wrote jail(), which is indeed cool... but freebsd jail is a common term.
Optical & RF specify two regions of the EM spectrum.
When someone says RF that means it's between 3khz and 300Ghz.
We do not consider gamma rays to be RF. Nor do we consider visible light to be RF. Nor do we consider the FM radio in your car to be an 'optical receiver'
120Ghz is not optical.
This thing uses lasers internally go generate the 120Ghz wave.
When dealing with data transmission, we speak in terms of bits per second, and G=1,000,000,000
Terms lik GBps and whatnot are 'made up' terms used by the computer world to try to sound smart.
As soon as someone talks about anyhting other than bits per second, with standard metric prefixes (with standard metric meanings), it becomes ambiguous.
B meaning byte and b meaning bit are a made up convention that some people adhere to, but not an engineering standard, I don't believe.
And since when is it NOT Gbps? bps has been a standard data communications term for a LONG time.
What is your definition of lens? Visible light is nothing special... it's just the light we can see. Different materials are transaprent to diferent wavelengths, just as glass is transparent to visible light. By the same token, a lens can be made to focus just about any wavelength.
120Ghz is a lot more like visible light than your usual radio..
120Ghz is way up there... just about at the high end of what is generally considered the radio spectrum (then you get into infrared and such).
It's not about the financial guys "getting" it. Most financial guys I've met "get" it right away if you can show profit. In the past, that was harder to do. In the future, it will be easier. (to show that free software is viable)
Well.. actually....
They are contradicted; the difference in results between the two theories is just very, very small, so as to have no practical effect on everyday life.
They are still very, very real.
My original point was that when the media says "Einstein proved wrong" that makes them think his theory is totally wrong, ie: it's calculations meaningless... when in fact is is just a reinfement.... any future theory has to explain why the old theory seemed to work.
Or to put it differently, if we gave newton the theory of relativity, he could not experimentally verify the results anyway, he had no instruments precise enough to do so... and would probalby conclude that his simpler theories are true.
If I give you a closed box, and you have no idea what's in it, and tell you to calculate the density of the box... I don't have to specify the AVERAGE density of the box.
You get it's mass, and it's volume, and calculate.
Yes, but apache has had tons of advanced features added to it.. it may not be the FIRST webserver, but it has been #1 for a LONG time, in innovation.
INnovation does not necessarily mean you invented something.. but that you took the time to put somethign together because it might be useful.
Never on any system other than linux have we seen so many tools put together from so many different parts.. if tha'ts not innovation, I don't know what is.
When we say MS doesn't innovate.. it's not simply because they steal ideas... everyone does that.. that's how knowledge works.. it's because they wait for other companies to do something then BUY THE COMPANY or BUY THE TECHNOLOGY. Or use their power to smash anyone who is innovating something new.
And it's an enemy you can't just take to court or buy. He's fighting against an ideology, not a company.
Until someone breaks into one machine and takes you to the cleaners.
Until NetBIOS gets confused about what protocol to use and you rlocal network goes to hell.
Until you realize that netbios won't cooperate with tcp/ip for bandwidth.
'n stuff.
Now I understand why the movie theater is always packed with a lineup around the block whenever a cool movie comes out. It's because nobody's going to the theater, and they are staying home to wait for the DVD.
Seriously, does this guy GO to the movies?
You might be shocked to know just how much wired infrastructure it takes to provide cellular coverage in a modern city. I'm willing to bet it's more than most people imagine.. a lot more.
Cellular is not like "put up one antenna in town, and everyone gets access".. there are cell sites EVERYWHERE, and they are packed with gear.
It sounds like you are saying everything naturally tends to be in a stable orbit; this is not true.
Yes, for something that is in a stable orbit that wants to be in a further out stable orbit, it has to speed up. If it wants to be in a lower stable orbit, it has to slow down..but simply speeding up or slowing down will not ensure a stable orbit. If you are in a stable orbit, and you hit the gas, you will end up in an eliptical orbit. If you hit the brakes, you will end up in a decaying orbit.
Yes, but in the case of a black hole, we are using the event horizon to define the limit of the 'object' we are measuring.. because that's all we can do.
You can't call it infinitely dense, because the common notions of density and space/time cease to have meaning from your outside point of view.
The problem is, you can't say that. Ignoring those things you talk about means ignore the reason the black hole exists in the first place. You CANNOT be pulled back out, because the forces required to do so are infinite. From a relativistic point of view, the outside universe is not a reachable place. It's not there; the distance to it is infinite... the dinstances involved are not what they appear to the outside observer (so to speak)
The rope would not pull throuth them. The rope would be stuck too, it's subjected to the same relativistic effects beyond a certain point.
For any given density, there exists a radius at which a ball of that density.... no.. that has to be wrong.
Had you said mass, yes, that would be true.. but density is mass per unit volume... a black hole is more 'dense' than a non-black hole of the same mass.
If something isn't dense enough to be a black hole, nothing of that density every will be, no matter how big or small.
They were not "incorrect"... they merely fail to describe all reality, as does every other theory we have.
Within the context of what newton and the world around him saw, and the speeds and masses they were working with, and the precision that was noticeable, his theories WERE true, just as einsteins were true until we found quantum behavior that seems to contradict it.
I hate it when people say "relativity is wrong" or "einstein was wrong". To them I say, go figure out how to make GPS work while ignoring the theory of relativity.
note he said "our physics" stop at the edge, and he's correct. We have no physics for what happens inside the event horizon.
You are mis-defining theory. in science, EVERYTHING is a theory. Yes, the black hole is a theoretical model, as we don't actually have one in a lab somewhere to analyze, and we can't take it apart and see what it's made of. But in that model, certain things are considered true...
OF COURSE relativity is not entirely correct in all scopes. As we don't yet have a universal physics model that can explain everything, NO THEORY IS ENTIRELY CORRECT.
Our theories are models that explain the universe we see within certian constraints. The theory of relativity is not wrong, there are just certain situations where there is a larger, more complex theory at work that only becomes evident in the very small, or whatnot.
Is it just me, or does it seem MS gets caught doing sneaky things when it comes to PR all the time? Things that would be EASY to avoid getting caught doing, even on a budget that is a fraction of theirs.
I have to wonder if they are not so blinded by their own success that they really don't see how the world outside microsoft operates?
I'm thinking of obviously faked videos used in trials, outright obvious lies about technology (as opposed to sneaky mis-truths)... stuff like this... fake grass-roots campaigns...
Weak dude, weak.
Well, generally "no users" means nobody is using it, so therefore it's dead.
Doesn't work.
Are you misshg some chars there?
Unless it is a security fix, I believe it will go into unstable.