Cynical hat on here.. I don't think it's supposed to work. It's an exercise in marketing to congress: piracy is rampant and nothing the music industry tries will ever stop it, so the law should be make even tougher.
someday someone (or a bunch of someones) will be phished severely, escalating the urgency of authentication
This is the key issue.. the victims. These are the people who need to be targeted if we're ever going to stop spam. No technological solution will ever fix the problem so long as it remains profitable.. people will go to extraordinary lengths to make a fast buck.. The debacle with Blue Frog demonstrated just how much power spammers wield over the internet. I really doubt that even a fundamental change to the underlying protocols of email would stop them.
Instead we need to educate the victims. Stop people clicking on links in emails *ever*, stop people buying "cheap prescription meds online", stop people sending thousands of dollars to the Nigerian interior minister.
Only when spam stops working will spammers stop working.
On the one hand I'm feeling that this sort of doomsaying article is merely an excuse for the producers of authentication systems to ramp up their prices in a "but this is an whole new version.. no upgrades possible.. you'll need to relicense!" scam.
On the other hand it's true than the winlogon stuff in Vista Beta isn't entirely complete, and consequently I have to wonder what Microsoft mean by 'beta'? When I (and lots of other people) release a beta it's basically feature-complete and API-locked, but isn't entirely tested.. no major differences are likely between the beta and the final. If MSFT are releasing beta software than isn't complete then why are they calling it a beta instead of an alpha or preview?
As for MS GINA being dropped.. I hope that VA release a version instead.. they could integrate it into sourceforge or something. *chuckle*
There's far too much emphasis places on whether a company recorded a profit or a loss in any one year by the media. By itself a profit or a loss is largely meaningless. In this example there's a clear justifiable reason why EA posted a loss. It was expected. The time to worry is when a company posts an unexpected loss, or a series of losses. This is not "stuff that matters".
In their ability to concentrate light, holograms are not as powerful as conventional concentrators. They can multiply the amount of light falling on the cells only by as much as a factor of 10, whereas lens-based systems can increase light by a factor of 100, and some even up to 1,000.
What's stopping me using a holographic collector in conjunction with a mirror/lens affair? Use mirrors/lens' to angle 100 - 1000 times more light energy on to the hologram.. That, presumably, would get the cost down yet further because it'd need even less silicon.
One cannot expect Yahoo! to turn away from such a lucrative market any more than one can expect a scorpion not to sting.
As business you're right, Yahoo! cannot be expected to turn away from such a lucrative market. However, as a group of human beings who make up the staff of Yahoo! they can be expected to conduct themselves in an ethical, moral, and responsible manner.. simply because they're people with brains. They *can* be expected to put life and liberty ahead of the mighty dollar.
Sadly though, in capitialist* society is seems that money overrules everything else. That is a crying shame.
* I was going to say "civilised", but it doesn't seem appropriate.
The article, or perhaps the course, neglects to mention anything about the "ethical" side of things. It's all well and good to say you're a "Certified Ethical Hacker", but if noone has quizzed you on the ethics of hacking then how could an employer be sure you actually are one?
In fact, even if you were questioned about the ethics of hacking, you might lie. An unethical person would.
So it's just a fancy but ultimately meaningless name then. "Certified Hacker" would suffice.
But do you really need the word "Certified" on a certificate? Isn't that redundant? It's obvious you're certified if you're brandishing a certificate.
So you could just as well put "Hacker" instead.
I don't think many employers want to employ a hacker. They're criminals!
1. People use their Blackberrys too much. 2. People don't need to be on call 24/7. 3. People who do use the Blackberrys alot and are on call all day are workoholics.
So there we have it. *Clearly* a Blackberry makes me a more productive worker because.. err.. no, sorry, there were no reasons stated. It just does coz it's ace or something.
I really hope the author never has cause to defend me on anything.
"No other major commercial operating system has this feature," claimed de Raadt. "The Linux security patch PaX has some of this stuff, but it's not part of the default kernel."
I'm not sure if Theo's comment was aimed as a criticism or just a statement of fact, but I'd question whether or not it should it be part of the kernel by default. Does it need to be? I can see the benefit of patching it in if you need it, but sensor monitoring is a pretty niche feature that a large number of people don't need. In the case of Linux where lots of installations aren't servers with this sort of hardware I reckon it *should* be an option that you only compile in if you want it.
The creator of Katamari Damacy essentially stated that games are a luxury. Games are only around when the game player is in a peaceful situation. If we could somehow get games to everyone all around the world, it would lead to peace by osmosis.
Once everyone is in a position where they can stop worrying about where their next meal is coming from, where they're going to sleep at night, how they can avoid dying of a nasty disease.. then they can start thinking about luxuries like games. Giving them the games isn't going to fix their real problems.
Besides.. games don't lead to peace. I can still remember the arguments over which was better out of the ZX (Timex) Spectrum or the Commodore 64, and the NES versus the Sega Master System, the Genesis versus Super Famicom, Amiga versus ST.. imagine those conflicts on a global scale!
For the record: Spectrum, NES, Super Famicom, and Amiga.;)
But building more special effects in the OS level will rob the extra power and memory from the applications and games which rightfully require them.
This guy is incredibly clueless. Effects only take up "power" (argh) and memory when they're in use. The likes of OSX automatically scales down the fancy stuff if your system doesn't have the grunt to run them well, I imagine Vista will do the same. Switch of the swishy bits and your system will use no more RAM or CPU time than if they weren't there in the first place. Besides which.. the PC I'm typing this reply on has a 2.6GHz CPU and 1Gb of RAM, with a Radeon 9800pro graphics card. That's faaaaar more than my desktop requires. If I didn't "waste" the extra capacity on delightfully shiny effects it'd just go to unused. It's not like Firefox would start using it.
And further to that.. I *like* swooshy effects. I'm a PHP developer. I need cheering up.;)
I enjoy learning about cutting edge technologies and find security interesting.
You can forget dealing with the cutting edge. Security work is all about currently deployed applications. For example, doing an audit at the moment is much more likely to require a good knowledge of Windows 2000 than XP or Vista.
In some cases, Albright said, a botmaster who has been cut off from his command-and-control center will simply wait a few days or weeks, then re-register the domain and reclaim stranded bots.'
Why don't the hunters register the domain for themselves? Or just ask the registrar controlling it to transfer it to their control? If the botnet owner tries to complain it's been hijacked he'd have to explain the botnet..
I reckon we're at about the right time for internet investments to start up again. Technology has caught up with the ideas. If Google's payment gateway plans live up to the rumours then the possibility of micropayment subscriptions for premium content is very real. Add to that the fact internet users are a much more clued up and savvy bunch with good, fast access and, critically, a willingness to spend money online there's a real opportunity here. The problem however is that investors are buying into (IMHO) the wrong thing. The biggest chunks of capital are going on things like social networking sites.. basically people are buying premium ad space. Online advertising is the old model.. the one that didn't work. It works for Google because they're not in the business of displaying adverts. They sell the distribution. Actually displaying the adverts doesn't yield much profit (a million here or there maybe, but not the hundreds of millions the venture capitalists want). I believe the future is in charging lots of users small sums for things the want.. like iTunes.
Why do games, for the most part, unrelentingly suck such ass?
Because making games is hard.
See also: Websites, records, television programmes..
Anything that involves a creative input is difficult because thats the way we're made. We love to think of ourselves as wonderfully creative creatures all very capable of coming up with brilliant new ideas day and night.. but that's simply not the case. Thinking up something original is exceedingly tricky. Games cross a bridge between technical innovation and creativity.. that makes them doubly difficult. And on top of that it's (perceived to be) a big money, big profit, prestigious part of the IT industry.. and that attracts just about everyone regardless of their level of capability.
So you have a difficult creative process blending with some hardcore technical requirements being worked on by just about everyone who wants fame and money.
To be brutally honest, the article should be asking how the hell any games are any good, not why most are bad.
Interesting to see a small time guy come up with a pretty cool tool like this while the major search players are spending millions trying to improve their own relevancy in blog search.
Millions of dollars and thousands of PhDs don't buy you a monopoly on good ideas.
Not at all. You can tell a lot from a study even if it's been commissioned by a particularly biased party. What features they highlight are likely to be well implimented and impressive, what features they skip over are likely to be very weak, if the commissioner of the study distance themselves from it then you can assume they're resorting to something underhand in order to promote their product.. if it was really good they'd not need to do that. Likewise if the study is especially negative about competing products.. a good product stands well on it's own without needing to push others down. For example, if I was telling you about the security features of OpenBSD I wouldn't feel the necessity to repeatedly mention Windows insecurities*..
So long as you approach TCO studies knowing what you're getting into you'll be fine, and you can learn a lot.
* I might still mention them a lot.. but it'd be for fun, not out of necessity.:)
Absolutely.. but that's something you can only really know if you use all the tools and then appraise them afterwards. If you're looking for a technology to run a 400 desktop network that would be a bit cost prohibitive. TCO studies are meant to aid people in making decisions prior to spending their money.. you can't find out which tool is best until *someone* has done that.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean "tale". Unless the women around your bit of the world are really weird..
Cynical hat on here
someday someone (or a bunch of someones) will be phished severely, escalating the urgency of authentication
.. the victims. These are the people who need to be targeted if we're ever going to stop spam. No technological solution will ever fix the problem so long as it remains profitable .. people will go to extraordinary lengths to make a fast buck .. The debacle with Blue Frog demonstrated just how much power spammers wield over the internet. I really doubt that even a fundamental change to the underlying protocols of email would stop them.
This is the key issue
Instead we need to educate the victims. Stop people clicking on links in emails *ever*, stop people buying "cheap prescription meds online", stop people sending thousands of dollars to the Nigerian interior minister.
Only when spam stops working will spammers stop working.
On the one hand I'm feeling that this sort of doomsaying article is merely an excuse for the producers of authentication systems to ramp up their prices in a "but this is an whole new version .. no upgrades possible .. you'll need to relicense!" scam.
.. no major differences are likely between the beta and the final. If MSFT are releasing beta software than isn't complete then why are they calling it a beta instead of an alpha or preview?
.. I hope that VA release a version instead .. they could integrate it into sourceforge or something. *chuckle*
On the other hand it's true than the winlogon stuff in Vista Beta isn't entirely complete, and consequently I have to wonder what Microsoft mean by 'beta'? When I (and lots of other people) release a beta it's basically feature-complete and API-locked, but isn't entirely tested
As for MS GINA being dropped
There's far too much emphasis places on whether a company recorded a profit or a loss in any one year by the media. By itself a profit or a loss is largely meaningless. In this example there's a clear justifiable reason why EA posted a loss. It was expected. The time to worry is when a company posts an unexpected loss, or a series of losses. This is not "stuff that matters".
In their ability to concentrate light, holograms are not as powerful as conventional concentrators. They can multiply the amount of light falling on the cells only by as much as a factor of 10, whereas lens-based systems can increase light by a factor of 100, and some even up to 1,000.
.. That, presumably, would get the cost down yet further because it'd need even less silicon.
What's stopping me using a holographic collector in conjunction with a mirror/lens affair? Use mirrors/lens' to angle 100 - 1000 times more light energy on to the hologram
One cannot expect Yahoo! to turn away from such a lucrative market any more than one can expect a scorpion not to sting.
.. simply because they're people with brains. They *can* be expected to put life and liberty ahead of the mighty dollar.
As business you're right, Yahoo! cannot be expected to turn away from such a lucrative market. However, as a group of human beings who make up the staff of Yahoo! they can be expected to conduct themselves in an ethical, moral, and responsible manner
Sadly though, in capitialist* society is seems that money overrules everything else. That is a crying shame.
* I was going to say "civilised", but it doesn't seem appropriate.
The article, or perhaps the course, neglects to mention anything about the "ethical" side of things. It's all well and good to say you're a "Certified Ethical Hacker", but if noone has quizzed you on the ethics of hacking then how could an employer be sure you actually are one?
;)
In fact, even if you were questioned about the ethics of hacking, you might lie. An unethical person would.
So it's just a fancy but ultimately meaningless name then. "Certified Hacker" would suffice.
But do you really need the word "Certified" on a certificate? Isn't that redundant? It's obvious you're certified if you're brandishing a certificate.
So you could just as well put "Hacker" instead.
I don't think many employers want to employ a hacker. They're criminals!
I don't think I'll be taking this course.
What they should have said is "DRM or bust".
If open source doesn't start supporting their DRM, they'll go bust.
The article basically says three things:
.. err .. no, sorry, there were no reasons stated. It just does coz it's ace or something.
1. People use their Blackberrys too much.
2. People don't need to be on call 24/7.
3. People who do use the Blackberrys alot and are on call all day are workoholics.
So there we have it. *Clearly* a Blackberry makes me a more productive worker because
I really hope the author never has cause to defend me on anything.
The catch is that the simple modification costs 200 points
People are complaining that they'll have to play the game in order to download stuff?
Riiiight..
I heard a legend of Scan being nice to a customer once. I always thought it was a myth..
"No other major commercial operating system has this feature," claimed de Raadt. "The Linux security patch PaX has some of this stuff, but it's not part of the default kernel."
I'm not sure if Theo's comment was aimed as a criticism or just a statement of fact, but I'd question whether or not it should it be part of the kernel by default. Does it need to be? I can see the benefit of patching it in if you need it, but sensor monitoring is a pretty niche feature that a large number of people don't need. In the case of Linux where lots of installations aren't servers with this sort of hardware I reckon it *should* be an option that you only compile in if you want it.
The creator of Katamari Damacy essentially stated that games are a luxury. Games are only around when the game player is in a peaceful situation. If we could somehow get games to everyone all around the world, it would lead to peace by osmosis.
.. then they can start thinking about luxuries like games. Giving them the games isn't going to fix their real problems.
.. games don't lead to peace. I can still remember the arguments over which was better out of the ZX (Timex) Spectrum or the Commodore 64, and the NES versus the Sega Master System, the Genesis versus Super Famicom, Amiga versus ST .. imagine those conflicts on a global scale!
;)
Once everyone is in a position where they can stop worrying about where their next meal is coming from, where they're going to sleep at night, how they can avoid dying of a nasty disease
Besides
For the record: Spectrum, NES, Super Famicom, and Amiga.
But building more special effects in the OS level will rob the extra power and memory from the applications and games which rightfully require them.
.. the PC I'm typing this reply on has a 2.6GHz CPU and 1Gb of RAM, with a Radeon 9800pro graphics card. That's faaaaar more than my desktop requires. If I didn't "waste" the extra capacity on delightfully shiny effects it'd just go to unused. It's not like Firefox would start using it.
.. I *like* swooshy effects. I'm a PHP developer. I need cheering up. ;)
This guy is incredibly clueless. Effects only take up "power" (argh) and memory when they're in use. The likes of OSX automatically scales down the fancy stuff if your system doesn't have the grunt to run them well, I imagine Vista will do the same. Switch of the swishy bits and your system will use no more RAM or CPU time than if they weren't there in the first place. Besides which
And further to that
One way or another, NASA plans to keep their astronauts feeling young.
Miss Young was unavailable for comment.
We can't find anything. All the books are in random order.
Have a catalogue on your computer isn't going to tidy up and organise your bookshelf. SQL queries don't work on shelves. Unfortunately.
I enjoy learning about cutting edge technologies and find security interesting.
You can forget dealing with the cutting edge. Security work is all about currently deployed applications. For example, doing an audit at the moment is much more likely to require a good knowledge of Windows 2000 than XP or Vista.
In some cases, Albright said, a botmaster who has been cut off from his command-and-control center will simply wait a few days or weeks, then re-register the domain and reclaim stranded bots.'
Why don't the hunters register the domain for themselves? Or just ask the registrar controlling it to transfer it to their control? If the botnet owner tries to complain it's been hijacked he'd have to explain the botnet..
Can I run it backwards and filter out everything that isn't porn? I'd find that more .. useful.
I reckon we're at about the right time for internet investments to start up again. Technology has caught up with the ideas. If Google's payment gateway plans live up to the rumours then the possibility of micropayment subscriptions for premium content is very real. Add to that the fact internet users are a much more clued up and savvy bunch with good, fast access and, critically, a willingness to spend money online there's a real opportunity here. The problem however is that investors are buying into (IMHO) the wrong thing. The biggest chunks of capital are going on things like social networking sites .. basically people are buying premium ad space. Online advertising is the old model .. the one that didn't work. It works for Google because they're not in the business of displaying adverts. They sell the distribution. Actually displaying the adverts doesn't yield much profit (a million here or there maybe, but not the hundreds of millions the venture capitalists want). I believe the future is in charging lots of users small sums for things the want .. like iTunes.
Why do games, for the most part, unrelentingly suck such ass?
..
.. but that's simply not the case. Thinking up something original is exceedingly tricky. Games cross a bridge between technical innovation and creativity .. that makes them doubly difficult. And on top of that it's (perceived to be) a big money, big profit, prestigious part of the IT industry .. and that attracts just about everyone regardless of their level of capability.
Because making games is hard.
See also: Websites, records, television programmes
Anything that involves a creative input is difficult because thats the way we're made. We love to think of ourselves as wonderfully creative creatures all very capable of coming up with brilliant new ideas day and night
So you have a difficult creative process blending with some hardcore technical requirements being worked on by just about everyone who wants fame and money.
To be brutally honest, the article should be asking how the hell any games are any good, not why most are bad.
Interesting to see a small time guy come up with a pretty cool tool like this while the major search players are spending millions trying to improve their own relevancy in blog search.
Millions of dollars and thousands of PhDs don't buy you a monopoly on good ideas.
Not at all. You can tell a lot from a study even if it's been commissioned by a particularly biased party. What features they highlight are likely to be well implimented and impressive, what features they skip over are likely to be very weak, if the commissioner of the study distance themselves from it then you can assume they're resorting to something underhand in order to promote their product .. if it was really good they'd not need to do that. Likewise if the study is especially negative about competing products .. a good product stands well on it's own without needing to push others down. For example, if I was telling you about the security features of OpenBSD I wouldn't feel the necessity to repeatedly mention Windows insecurities*..
:)
So long as you approach TCO studies knowing what you're getting into you'll be fine, and you can learn a lot.
* I might still mention them a lot.. but it'd be for fun, not out of necessity.
Best tool for the job is my attitude.
Absolutely.. but that's something you can only really know if you use all the tools and then appraise them afterwards. If you're looking for a technology to run a 400 desktop network that would be a bit cost prohibitive. TCO studies are meant to aid people in making decisions prior to spending their money.. you can't find out which tool is best until *someone* has done that.