They're trying to change your behavior to force you into the old model they're used to.
I would agree with this and I think the model they're use to is return on their dollar and that isn't holding true for web advertising : $1000 in advertising is not equalling $1001 in additional profits. As bizarre as it might seem, television commercials have been proven to work: Put a name in someone's head and they might give it a second chance at the super market. Namespace is a very confounding thing but it's so true : Put your name in people's minds and they're more likely to buy your product or services (it's like the old "any advertising is good advertising" motto). Remember that while the net started off as the realm of the intellectual elite, it is now the domain of every facet of society, so the advertising is going to evolve into the standard namespace advertising.
Having said that do you really think advertising in the way you mention would work? Remember that advertising is a science as much as it's an art : These people know what they're doing. They study and research and follow and test. They analyze the impace of every type of image, colour, sound, etc. If there was an ad saying "IBM Deskstar 9ms 7200RPM ATA100 - Fast!" I wouldn't even notice it...and that's the problem that advertisers are finding : People simply don't notice ads on the net. On TV the ad takes over the TV (they've been trying other things...during a F1 race last year they tried doing a thing where they had side screen ads with the race still running : I TOTALLY didn't notice the ad while trying to concentrate on the race, and I'm sure they found this to be universally the case as they never did it again) so you can't help but notice it. Hell advertisements are some of the best things on TV (see http://www.adcritic.com) but it's because we give them a chance in the first place. Banner ads don't get a chance on the web. Hell on Slashdot I scroll down so quickly I never have a clue what the ads are. I think once there was one about a penguin stepping on Redmond but that's the only one I've ever noticed.
While I don't like banner ads, popup ads, or even advertising on television or the radio, the people who provide the content that you rely on (for example I have no problem with the banner ad on Slashdot here. If I had some moral objection I simply WOULDN'T COME TO SLASHDOT. It would be moral theft to use Slashdot's hardware and programming without allowing them a chance at financial returns) have to make money (hell most of them are begging only to make enough to not go under next month...let alone the idea of profit). Even if it's Jim Bob running a moderately successful fanzine co-location or a high speed connection doesn't come for free, neither does the hardware that he's running it on, neither does the electricity that it's using, etc. You may not like advertising but if you're looking for someone else for info, entertain, or enlighten you then stick to the.edu domains (where you're still paying for it through taxes) or realize that people have to survive.
It seems like an awful lot of people out there are of the mindset that they should be getting everything for nothing : The world owes them. Warez software while claiming that open source is the wave of the future, all the while giving pathetic excuses about how software companies make too much money anyways. Warez MP3z all the while talking about the evil music industry and how mainstream music sucks (What's that? Make your own music and provide it to the world for free? NO WAY MAN!). DeCSS DVD's while claiming that the evil movie empire makes crappy movies anyways (What's that? Make your own movies or actually watch independant "Free" movies? NO WAY MAN!).
Capitalism is a funny and remarkable thing and it's very unfortunate that it is put into such a bad light (usually by ignorant youth who have neither the experience nor the wisdom to have the slightest idea what they're talking about, but they're looking for some anti-mainstream platform to try to differentiate themselves). Instead of chickens and wheat being traded back and forth we pass around dollars. You do something that I want : I pay you for it. I do something you want : You pay me for it. There is nothing evil about that system, and in fact it is remarkably fair and workable quite frequently. Advertisers sort of confused the situation by saying "We'll pay for the service you want hoping to get you to buy our service over our competitors". That's how NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. work. Advertisers are trying to apply the same fundamentals to the web but unfortunately technology is denying them the value that they are paying for (again they are paying for a service that YOU are using), so they're trying to change the model. Makes sense to me for the free world to continue to exist.
Having said all that I really think a lot of the web will be reverting to a pay structure soon, and personally I'm looking forward to it. If I could pay a good, very high quality, good research technology paper $40 a year or whatever to have access to knowledgable articles that are up to date and frequently changed (there used to be lots of these but they're all finding that the advertiser supported model simply doesn't work on the web where there are so many cheats), I would do that in a minute. Of course a bunch of socialist, no-clue-what-they-talking about little fucks would undoubtably start ripping content and posting it somewhere else all the while talking about how the model doesn't work (which is akin to throwing firebombs into old age homes and saying that a non-police state just doesn't work). My company would pay $X a year to have corporate access to something like Deja news, or even something like Google. Again we realize that these things cost a lot of money to run, and they're providing us a great service, so if they need that model to survive then I would absolutely support them.
Or at least that's my take no things. The irony is that like government services, it all costs you in the end. Advertisers have to recoup the cost in their products for the services that they paid for for you so it's all the same anyways. Alas.
Took a look at that page and it looks very bogus. It stinks of a spurned ex-lover who is jealously trying to ruin her life. The pathetic little hax3r intro followed by him immediately somehow getting a screenshot of her screen (without claiming that she was already infected by a trojan) just seems completely and utterly bogus.
Most of this stuff is just stupidly absurd. Mr "Head End" with his mondo server array just sounds like a complete idiot with a lot of people laughing their asses off while they bleed his easy come easy go cash out of his account.
That's one nasty looking suit Mr. Nicholas.
Mr. Audiophile again looks like an ass who is being raped by his "experts". Some of the best sounding speakers are 2-way, very simple speakers for personal enjoyment. You can always tell the clowns who can't tell the difference between a 96Kbps MP3 and a DVD-audio by the fact that they slobber over a 40-way "digital ready" speaker.
There are a LOT of posts in here that have absolutely no comprehension of economics. Let me just put it this way : The next time you see some rich guy "wasting" money -> SAVE THE RHETORIC ABOUT THEM FEEDING THE HOMELESS OR SAVING AFRICA. Economics don't work that way. It would be a long, convoluted conversation to go into it but please don't presume that there is a finite amount of "money" in the world and these guys are using it up buying their goodies. Every dollar they spend fuels a continuing economy which keeps thousands of people with jobs, each of those people supporting thousands of other people, etc. Bah.
Most of these homes are in the Valley or San Francisco or thereabouts, which to me explains the exclusion of Bill Gates and any other Washington state rich guy. Did I miss something though?
Technology will do a lot for homes. Something as simple as the FreeBSD box I have in my basement providing firewalled, shared connectivity through a 100Mbps switch through several rooms in my house makes my families life easier and more convenient, and that's what it's all about. Apart from the obvious home automation I'd like to put some effort into better "home conditioning" in the home environment to eliminate hot or cold spots during the work, asymmetrical heating, etc. Technology definitely has a place in modern homes and it will only grow. Not to the degree of some of these clowns, but it is inevitable.
One thing I noticed on the top 10 "Most Wanted" is 24.0.94.130 and 24.0.0.203 : Both of these are official @Home scanner IPs that they use to scan subscribers PCs (i.e. only people in the @Home network should be scanned by these addresses). 24.0.0.203 usually is used to scan for NNTP servers (I get scanned every two hours pretty much to the minute) which was put into place after the big Usenet threats against @Home. 24.0.94.130 scans clients for most known trojans and backdoors. If they find either they, as far as I have heard, shut down your connection until you fix it and contact them when they'll recheck to verify. Great service to avoid people being their worst enemy.
As a sidenote I previously disagreed with someone regarding whether there is a lot of NetBIOS traffic on @Home. At the time I claimed that I didn't get scanned for NetBIOS traffic. Turns out that it was the region I was in previously (Rogers@Home) where they filter out all NetBIOS traffic. Now that I'm in a different region (Cogeco@Home) I find that I'm getting NetBIOS scanned all the time. Out of curiousity occassionally I'll do a \\IP.IP.IP.IP back and find someone sharing their C, D, etc. drives. I don't know if it's an owned machine, or someone with a honeypot, but it's pretty funny nonetheless.
Is this a joke? Seriously how did this piece of crap end up on Slashdot which recently has become almost respectable and unbiased? The overwhelming absurdity of this article is beyond the imagination and anyone who actually believes it must be smoking some mighty strong crack (and NO ONE in software development will believe this shit and will immediately discredit this fool as exactly what he is : A pandering rumor monger eaking up hits however he can with absolutely no integrity or ethics).
HWND CreateWindow(LPCTSTR lpClassName,LPCTSTR lpWindowName,DWORD dwStyle,int x, int y, int nWidth, int nHeight, HWND hWndParent, HMENU hMenu, HINSTANCE hInstance, LPVOID lpParam) {// Do windows creation code// Insert super stable, mondo awesome Linux code here!
}
Unbelievable. If any of you believe this, please become luddites and get out of the software and computer businesses, because you're very stupid.
That guy is a very sad man indeed. He's so enormously petty it's PATHETIC. His little cry baby tirade when Intel didn't put him on the top of their Mac Daddy list when the 1.13 came out was absolutely absurd.
Ah the fools perception of the stock market. Shorting a stock you have INFINITE liability yet the ability to make at most 100% back. Shorting is traditionally a higher "loser" ratio than betting on a company (because markets generally continue to march forward with slight declines).
BTW : You can't short with "no money"-> Most financial firms require significant up front cash to short because of the enormous risk.
This is absolutely absurd. I remember when I was young and loved my Atari ST. One of the big selling points was that is a special, slideshot mode the machine could display 512 colours simultaneously. At the same time the Amiga could, in HAM mode, display 4096 colours. I remember questioning advocates though when they claimed that 512 colours was "more than the eye can see!". I've read the same thing now about 16-bit colour, then 24-bit colour, yet strangely many graphic artists insist upon 32-bit colour because of differentiations. I guess the human race is just evolving really quickly!
The same thing has happened with sound as well with people continually advocating that XYZ is "better than the ear can hear!" (i.e. the absurd MP3 argument that 128Kbps is better than the ear can hear : To put it simply -> Bullshit. Yet it's amazing hearing people telling us that).
A simple proof that this article is bogus is the fact that it claims that you 72 Hz is the optimum refresh rate. Hardly. On short persistence monitors 85Hz is barely adequate, and I guarantee that if presented with the various options I could easily tell the difference. Yet more importantly is the fact that computer images are instantaneous images, and multiple images in one eye "cycle" can lead to the blur which gives a massive amount of information : 190 images per second GUARANTEED looks different than 85 images per second. However getting to the fundamental of the argument, the reason that you want "200fps!" in Q3 or whathaveyou is that that is a best case or average frame rate, and the hope is that by getting such a frame rate it won't bog down when the rockets are flying and enemies are abound.
Well I've gone every which direction, but sorry this article seems like someone trying to justify why everyone else are idiots to get their GeForce II GTS 64MB while they lolly along with their ATI Rage. Blah.
Any management that thinks auditing is an effective way of encouraging good work ethics is insane and grossly inept and should be fireed immediately. Any manager that sees low productivity or low morale and thinks the solution is to start snooping on employee activities should give up and become a basket weaver. I am not kidding.
The only true measure of an employees worthiness is output and nothing but. This is a very important concept as we move to more telecommuting/contract type employment anyways (and boy will the lines get blurry when employers are monitoring employees in their own home). The vast majority of us in this business get paid by salary, not by punching a card in a clock, and while there are some general expectations regarding hours, generally the salary structure is based upon perforance not time. For our salary we are expected to contribute a certain amount of worth to the company versus the salary that we are receiving. If an employee doesn't contribute that worth then firstly examine the management structure and corporate supports to determine if they are the problem, and if not FIRE THEM. That is the only way to manage effectively in the information age. If you've got some company outcast sitting in a room packet scanning whether someone is using hotmail then you've got your priorities totally messed up : There are a million ways of wasting away time and if you think you're creating a super efficient workplace by totalitarianistic network policies then you are completely ignorant of the real world.
If you have a worker that you think might be dicking away a lot of time simply set goals and performance requirements and you should have a system in place that measures metrics (not keystrokes as that is worthless, but some other metric). Reward exceptional performance and punish under performance. The time an employee needs to accomplish that goals is irrelevant. Obviously if someone is sending offensive mail from a company email address that is poor judgement and should be punished, however if someone is sending emails to friends on Hotmail you really shouldn't give a shit if you have the performance metrics and good measurement systems. If you think you will improve the worthiness of your company by instituting superficial monitoring systems then you are will soon be out of a job as your company will be out of business.
BTW : For the corporate outcasts that feel the supreme justice of being the one's "in charge" of monitoring employees : Firstly these systems are never unbiased -> It is usually targetted at whichever persons these losers feel a dislike towards recently. Secondly there is no justification based upon what I was saying above (except for a few positions which are more time based : i.e. answering phones). Pathetic claims about "company resources" and the like are ridiculous. Do you abscond from drinking lest you use the sacred company water pissing? Do you partake of company provided refreshments? Do you happily request a 14" monitor over a 19" because really netmon runs just as good at 800x600? If not then shut up : The "wear and tear" on a computer system for someone to visit hotmail is rather minimal and of minimal costs.
logged in as Administrator, not as a user in the admin group
As a point of interest there is nothing special about the Administrator accont. In fact it's common practice to completely neuter that account to remove a known for hax3rs. All that really matters (usually) is the "Administrators" local group, or Domain Admins which has priviledges usually only because it belongs in the Administrators local group (and it gets added to every machine that joins the domains local Administrators group).
However how exactly are you trying to kill the process? If you mean pulling up task manager then no, that won't work. Task manager tries to ensure stability of the system by not allowing certain operations to occur, such as the killing of processes running as services (there are some esoteric other conditions that are imposed). However to get around that as mentioned use the kill command (reskit) or pskill which do not try to be so polite.
To have the "user right" to use these tools against a process the user (or a group the user belongs to) needs to have the user right "Debug a process" or something along those lines (in NT 4 you have to show advanced rights I believe). Technically kill is opening a debug connection to the process and then destroying it.
You are probably a MCSE (Minesweeper Certified Solitaire Expert), aren't you?
Damn, you got me. Indeed I am. I am not averse to knowing what I'm doing, as apparently you are.
I'm sorry, but http://your.server.com/global.asa+.htr returning the plain text file is just dangerous, and if you've fixed that exploit, just check securityfocus.com for more.
Oh gee your case is proven. Portmapper for Redhat let a user root compromise the system (with a handy little root console and everything). I suppose therefore, by your reasoning, Linux isn't viable as a secure system? That's absurd logic my friend. Every major piece of software on the planet has things that don't quite work as expected. BTW : If "Chicago Title and Trust" used sa as their login for their database then they're idiots. In any case what exactly did you plan on doing with that password/username? The reality is that in the majority of cases there's shit all you could do as they usually don't leave port 1433 open.
If you weren't a M$ lemming on crack, you might realize that Apache is easier to program than IIS and that programming for COM blows. (Yeah, I've done the ISAPI filters, ATL COM objects and ASP.) ASP and other script in content languages suck. Sorry, but Apache and Tomcat blow away IIS and ASP/COM in development time and application stability/security.
I can see from your posting that you're clearly not an immature, zealot who couldn't hack the real world so I'm going to have to look into your claims so I can do some learnin'. Thank you for learnin' me good oh keemoosabi. Let me get back to Apache 1.32 on my FreeBSD box you moron.
+------------------------------------------------- -------+
| You now have successfully built and installed the |
| Apache 1.3 HTTP server. To verify that Apache actually |
| works correctly you now should first check the |
| (initially created or preserved) configuration files |
| |
|/usr/local/etc/apache/httpd.conf
| |
| and then you should be able to immediately fire up |
| Apache the first time by running: |
| |
|/usr/local/sbin/apachectl start
| |
| Thanks for using Apache. The Apache Group |
| http://www.apache.org/ |
+------------------------------------------------- -------+
Apache has better security, modularity, and better development support.
That should be suffixed by "IMHO". IIS uses the OS model of security, and the NT/2000 security model is extremely comprehensive. As far as modularity I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to however IIS has the modularity of any ISAPI filter, ISAPI module, CGI, and the script host scripting types (i.e. Add in as many scripting types as you want). Map file types to ISAPI filteres, etc. ANYTHING can be done with IIS. Hell even sticking with straight JScript and ASP you can implement an infinite variability of logic in COM objects. Regarding development support I hugely disagree with that. Firstly if using Perl the standard help holds true with some small changes. If using ASP there are a massive number of getting started help sites, and there is the MSDN which is an extraordinary help.
So in other words while I've said nothing about Apache, I have countered what you mentioned about IIS. Apache might be awesome, but IIS isn't chopped liver itself. It's actually quite a fantastic product however each use has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
You can split each virtual directory off as a separate process in NT 4, and with 2000 you have excellent granularity as far as chosing how to configure the server.
Inetinfo doesn't run as a kernel process, it runs as a user process in the system account. Secondly the service manager "requests" that inetinfo stop and any admin worth their salt knows that if the service is having troubles it won't respond to this friendly request and SCM has no other way of acting. In those cases you use your friendly "kill" command (in the resource kit or pskill from sysinternals.com) and either kill inetinfo.exe, or more acceptably you kill the out-of-process OLE object that your script created that is zombied and then shut down inetinfo.
It has been a long, long time since I've had to reboot a server because of a problem with IIS (i.e. there is no change to IIS that causes the server to have to be rebooted). Additionally a brain-dead IIS can be killed and then restarted. Of course on production servers the code is of a calibre that generally the service doesn't zombie, but developers have it happen a lot and know how to deal with it.
BTW : Your argument sounds like the foolish arguments back in the early days of linux when all hardware support was compiled in via make flags : That was a BENEFIT because it gave a super ultra customized kernel that was super duper optimized! Of course now Linux operates almost entirely like NT/2000 with loaded devices, as it should so the song has changed : Loadable modules rule! Apache is moving to a thread architecture (2.0?) versus spawning a separate process because it is ABSURD to spawn a process for every single user, and when that happens the same people who are now carrying on about the super stability of Apache will be talking about it's superior multithreading architecture.
Mine for several weeks have been showing almost nothing but port 137, 138, 139 shit
That is whacky. I'm talking about my personal machine sitting on the @Home network and my BSD firewall box has not seen a single attempt on any of the NetBIOS ports. Not one. I don't know where you are but are you perhaps on a corporate network and all your coworkers run Windows?;-). Seriously though I find it odd that I haven't seen a single NetBIOS attempt and you say you are innundated with them.
Watching what that h4x3r5 are looking at is always quite interesting. Several attempts tonight have been to port 23 (telnet), and from a diverse crowd. I have a completely locked down firewall so it's not like they're hitting me as a known target, but rather this is network scanning. Why the sudden interest in telnet tonight?
On the topic of scans I will admit that scanning for SubSeven and BackOrifice has gone up MASSIVELY in the past 24 hours. Either someone has a distributed-scan going or some warez or software has gone out with one of these trojans and the kiddies are looking for the infected. Fascinating stuff though.
This all has nothing to do with Microsoft's design. In fact quite the opposite. NT/2000, like most modern operating systems, have a pervasive operating system that imposes security everywhere. Every registry key, every file, every service, every mutex, every object. Everything has an ACL (Access Control List) that allows massive granularity of security configurations. Of course by default most objects are configured as "Everyone" but using some standard utilities and a good admin that's quickly fixed.
That pervasive security model carries through to lots of other applications as well. In SQL Server I define which of the NT users have rights to access the database server, then the databases individually, then the individual objects. Actually you can configure specific columns with ACLs. However that is all lost the moment a project is done in too tight of a timeline and security takes a backseat : In that case you end up with "Domain Users" configured as db_owners and sysadmins. That is rampant and it has absolutely nothing to do with the operating system.
Microsoft gets slammed a lot for things which are the exact opposite of their intent. There is nothing inherently wrong with the OS model, there's something wrong with the priorities of some developers and some organizations.
I like how he was just clarifying information, and you had to spew this mindless drivel about how great linux is. Yes. We all know that. Moderators, can't you notice this karma whoring when you see it? You're getting played!
Uh are you being serious? My posting was a sarcastic play on the standard Slashdot-esque "open source is the solution to all mankinds ills" claims (i.e. read it again : I was actually saying quite the opposite of claiming the greatness of Linux). I think you have an ISAPI filter (;-p) that is parsing postings in a rather nasty way, totally obliterating the original intent.
In any case I find your comment that I am karma whoring interesting. To be honest I expected quite the opposite (i.e. to find that baby at a -1). I am getting to really respect the moderation of Slashdot because it is no longer "anything-pro-Linux=+++++++", "anything-not-pro-Linux=---------".
Apparently you haven't learned the lesson so many on Slashdot are trying continually to teach : All open source software is immune to holes, bugs, exploits, etc., because there are millions of industrious, highly skilled, hard working, always looking out for everyone else people hard at work code reviewing all of the code continuously. Microsoft, on the other hand, spits out scary trojan horse code that's easily cracked. At least that's the lesson I've `learned' here. If it's a negative story about Linux (i.e. hundreds of Linux machines have been exploited and are poised to be DDOS clients) it's FUD. If it's a negative story about Microsoft it needs to be yelled from the highest towers and if it isn't the top story on CNN for a week straight then it's a conspiracy.
It's getting intriguing because watching my firewall logs I am getting a TONNE of checks on ports (such as portmapper) that are known Linux exploits, and some that are known exploits (i.e. scans on certain UNIX services yet there are no issued warnings about those services). Apart from the thousands of Linux boxen 0Wn3D already because of the known issues (oh wait doesn't open source magically make the administrator/user a better person therefore they read bugtraq and carefully secure their machine? That's at least the story that I get from Slashdot. NT/2000 users : Stupid. Linux users : Super smart super geniuses!), there appear to be some people in the know about exploits that are yet to become public.
Security is everyone's concern regardless of OS, WWW server, etc.
Having been responsible for the creation of a number of websites using IIS I can say that I have NEVER put a password in any web page or asa's source. I either use an account with proper authentication for anonymous access (i.e. configuring the database to allow access from IWEB_), or I use a database guest account. These are absolute no brainers. If using a database system that doesn't integrate with NT Authentication I use the appropriate database guest account for anonymous access (and we are talking about anonymous access here).
Additionally security, as it always should be, should be very pervasive and built in many layers of the system. There should be a firewall eliminating anything but the appropriate access (obviously) so even if someone did have the database passwords there would be nothing they can do without getting past the firewall (note that this also requires locking down or removing RDS : Look in IIS for the virtual directory "msadc". If you don't need or use RDS get rid of it. It's potentially a backdoor into your DB). However the database should be running on a completely separate machine/domain trusting only the appropriate account from the IIS machine for severely restricted "public viewing" access. The database should be configured with appropriate permissions on every table (usually zero access for anyone), stored procedure, etc. Anonymous web access doesn't need to see the whole DB, and they definitely should never have write access, etc.
It's sad seeing so many house of cards systems being put up and security is a one layer design : If you get past that one layer you own the system.
BTW: If you run an IIS system go into Application Mappings and remove anything that you don't need. In the vast majority of cases all you need are ASP and ASA (and also enable "Check that File Exists" for these). There are lots of "opt-out" esoteric parsers that IIS bundles that 99.999% of the population never ever needs, and the problem is that because they're not scrutinized they often harbour gross security holes. If you don't need it, it shouldn't be in there. If a website reads from a database it should be using an account that has appropriate permissions, etc. These are all basics and they are true regardless of the operating system or web serving software.
But I've never managed to make a good, on-the-runway soft landing in either Microsoft Flight Simulator or any of the other flight sims I've tried. It's just not the same thing.
What sort of controls do you use? Just as a real aircraft doesn't use two keys on a keyboard to control the throttle, you shouldn't when playing a sim : A good analog throttle control is absolutely, positively mandatory. Additionally some form of analog independant rudder control is required to master the art of simulations. If you have those as well as the standard control service controls (a Sidewinder Precision Pro for instance) then you can master landing with ease time after time.
Prior to getting this stick I found landings extremely difficult and it was more a lucky crash when I did survive. Now I can land in Falcon 4 or FS 2000 under just about any condition with ease.
Most of my software development is for the power generation industry and I can say with pretty good authority that there are substantial power generation "Facilities" being deployed however they aren't the classic gigantic 300MW plant, but rather many 20MW micro-`plants' distributed throughout states. It simply makes more sense and due to a lot of convergence of technology it proves economically very effective.
As long as you have the full source, and can compile it yourself, this problem would not exist.
Wow you read every line of every product or port that you install? Wow. I just did a line count of my/usr/src/sys directory (free BSD) and came out with 795,565 lines of code : Let's guess that you can absorb and understand 6 lines of code a minute (GROSS OVERESTIMATION! The various dependencies and interrelaitons make it incredibly difficult to understand and reasonably follow large projects without a considerable time investment. As projects get larger the time per line increases exponentially) : In just 2,209 hours you'll be ready to install that software! Whoops you want to play Nethack 3 (hehe...I remember downloading that from a BBS way back when through a FTP-through-email relay. It was a massive download at the time and I believe I was responsible for plugging the internet pipe for a while for that BBS.) : That's another 363,961 lines of code for you to browse through (BTW: These are overstated values as I'm too lazy to fix the recursive line count script). I hope you don't dare to install it without reviewing it. Of course those other trustworthy guys must have thoroughly reviewed it....right...
Presuming software is safe because it's open source is a false belief. Hell recently I noticed my firewall was catching several packets outgoing from my BSD machine to curious destinations : I still don't know where they're coming from.
You don't have too... feel free to unplug your computer.
That's an idiotic reply. The issue at hand is that there's yet another method for people who we probably don't want tracking us (for whatever our reasons. No one has to justify to anyone else why they feel they deserve basic privacy) and it wasn't made apparent to most users. Many companies take privacy way too loosely and it's unfortunate that people like yourself feel that that's ay okay.
the only people that care are the ones who are doing something illegal
That is a VERY dangerous belief and one that demonstrates the pawns that people can become. Let me guess: Only terrorists use PGP? I've had this exact same debate with several unreasonable folks regarding PGP and their belief that there's nothing to hide and only criminals need to encrypt their messages: That is absurd and frightening. I point simply to the excellent forward to the PGP manual by Mr. Zimmerman regarding people's complete ignorance to privacy in the computer realm, yet they strangely seek privacy is far less trackable methods such as letter mail. The paradox is that in the computer realm email messages, surfing habits, etc. can be monitored in the billions of hits/messages and archived FOREVER, whereas someone trying to read people's letter mail or listen to voice conversations would require massive resources to operate.
Computers and the net in general allow for information to be gathered in absolutely massive quantities learning just about everything about all of us without privacy safeguards. What if you DID want to form an unbiased opinion about drugs (I'm not stating a stand here I'm merely giving an example) so you went searching out looking for material about the effects and statistics for illicit substances : Is that illegal? NO. That's the foundation of a democracy, but it falls crashing to the ground when idiots claim that there's no reason someone should be doing that so the jackbooted storm troopers go storming in to stop this 'illegal' activity. There aren't geniuses in ivory towers setting the rules and guiding our way, instead there are politicians who generally follow the publics whims. When the publics whims are based on ignorance or fear is that the way a democracy should work? Hardly. How can you question the way things are done if you are deprived of the methods to even do it? It is SCARY SHIT. Please read Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell as soon as you can. While this may seem extremist, it isn't whatsoever. They say that you get the government you deserve and that portends a very gloomy future given people's gross ignorance about their own privacy and rights.
No matter how much people yap about how this doesn't matter and they don't mind if marketers know, etc, you really do care you're just too naive to realize it. What if we started recording all your phone calls and I could grab them in Napster as MP3s? Your emails should be accessible as well so that we can peer review whether you're worthy as a human being. Hell we'd like to know you DNA structure so if there are any weaknesses you can be relegated to the mundane low-value positions lest you waste our time. Hell the second you look up any disease (no matter what your reaosn) we'll ensure that you can't get insurance and your bank refuses credit. If you look at porn you must be a child molestor : GET HIM UP AGAINST THE WALL!
Don't be a FUCKING IDIOT. There are so many people out there that are insanely naive it defies logic. Computers and the "information highway" bring a whole new ballgame to the table : One where privacy is astronomically more threatened than ever before. Yet previously where people would worry about their phone calls being monitored (why do new cell phones encrypt the messages? Must be a bunch of criminals!) or their mail being steamed open by secret operatives en route to Grandma in the next town, now people casually brush off technology that can permanently log every action, search phrase and browsing habit for life. Did you accidentally follow a goatsex link? Well I hope you don't get a job in upper management later in life because sometime somewhere they'll correlated IPs with users (hey what does it matter if those darn marketers use the information wisely?) and you'll be outed as a giant stretched anus loving freak. GET HIM UP AGAINST THE WALL!
Slashdot Mirror
They're trying to change your behavior to force you into the old model they're used to.
I would agree with this and I think the model they're use to is return on their dollar and that isn't holding true for web advertising : $1000 in advertising is not equalling $1001 in additional profits. As bizarre as it might seem, television commercials have been proven to work: Put a name in someone's head and they might give it a second chance at the super market. Namespace is a very confounding thing but it's so true : Put your name in people's minds and they're more likely to buy your product or services (it's like the old "any advertising is good advertising" motto). Remember that while the net started off as the realm of the intellectual elite, it is now the domain of every facet of society, so the advertising is going to evolve into the standard namespace advertising.
Having said that do you really think advertising in the way you mention would work? Remember that advertising is a science as much as it's an art : These people know what they're doing. They study and research and follow and test. They analyze the impace of every type of image, colour, sound, etc. If there was an ad saying "IBM Deskstar 9ms 7200RPM ATA100 - Fast!" I wouldn't even notice it...and that's the problem that advertisers are finding : People simply don't notice ads on the net. On TV the ad takes over the TV (they've been trying other things...during a F1 race last year they tried doing a thing where they had side screen ads with the race still running : I TOTALLY didn't notice the ad while trying to concentrate on the race, and I'm sure they found this to be universally the case as they never did it again) so you can't help but notice it. Hell advertisements are some of the best things on TV (see http://www.adcritic.com) but it's because we give them a chance in the first place. Banner ads don't get a chance on the web. Hell on Slashdot I scroll down so quickly I never have a clue what the ads are. I think once there was one about a penguin stepping on Redmond but that's the only one I've ever noticed.
While I don't like banner ads, popup ads, or even advertising on television or the radio, the people who provide the content that you rely on (for example I have no problem with the banner ad on Slashdot here. If I had some moral objection I simply WOULDN'T COME TO SLASHDOT. It would be moral theft to use Slashdot's hardware and programming without allowing them a chance at financial returns) have to make money (hell most of them are begging only to make enough to not go under next month...let alone the idea of profit). Even if it's Jim Bob running a moderately successful fanzine co-location or a high speed connection doesn't come for free, neither does the hardware that he's running it on, neither does the electricity that it's using, etc. You may not like advertising but if you're looking for someone else for info, entertain, or enlighten you then stick to the .edu domains (where you're still paying for it through taxes) or realize that people have to survive.
It seems like an awful lot of people out there are of the mindset that they should be getting everything for nothing : The world owes them. Warez software while claiming that open source is the wave of the future, all the while giving pathetic excuses about how software companies make too much money anyways. Warez MP3z all the while talking about the evil music industry and how mainstream music sucks (What's that? Make your own music and provide it to the world for free? NO WAY MAN!). DeCSS DVD's while claiming that the evil movie empire makes crappy movies anyways (What's that? Make your own movies or actually watch independant "Free" movies? NO WAY MAN!).
Capitalism is a funny and remarkable thing and it's very unfortunate that it is put into such a bad light (usually by ignorant youth who have neither the experience nor the wisdom to have the slightest idea what they're talking about, but they're looking for some anti-mainstream platform to try to differentiate themselves). Instead of chickens and wheat being traded back and forth we pass around dollars. You do something that I want : I pay you for it. I do something you want : You pay me for it. There is nothing evil about that system, and in fact it is remarkably fair and workable quite frequently. Advertisers sort of confused the situation by saying "We'll pay for the service you want hoping to get you to buy our service over our competitors". That's how NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. work. Advertisers are trying to apply the same fundamentals to the web but unfortunately technology is denying them the value that they are paying for (again they are paying for a service that YOU are using), so they're trying to change the model. Makes sense to me for the free world to continue to exist.
Having said all that I really think a lot of the web will be reverting to a pay structure soon, and personally I'm looking forward to it. If I could pay a good, very high quality, good research technology paper $40 a year or whatever to have access to knowledgable articles that are up to date and frequently changed (there used to be lots of these but they're all finding that the advertiser supported model simply doesn't work on the web where there are so many cheats), I would do that in a minute. Of course a bunch of socialist, no-clue-what-they-talking about little fucks would undoubtably start ripping content and posting it somewhere else all the while talking about how the model doesn't work (which is akin to throwing firebombs into old age homes and saying that a non-police state just doesn't work). My company would pay $X a year to have corporate access to something like Deja news, or even something like Google. Again we realize that these things cost a lot of money to run, and they're providing us a great service, so if they need that model to survive then I would absolutely support them.
Or at least that's my take no things. The irony is that like government services, it all costs you in the end. Advertisers have to recoup the cost in their products for the services that they paid for for you so it's all the same anyways. Alas.
Took a look at that page and it looks very bogus. It stinks of a spurned ex-lover who is jealously trying to ruin her life. The pathetic little hax3r intro followed by him immediately somehow getting a screenshot of her screen (without claiming that she was already infected by a trojan) just seems completely and utterly bogus.
One thing I noticed on the top 10 "Most Wanted" is 24.0.94.130 and 24.0.0.203 : Both of these are official @Home scanner IPs that they use to scan subscribers PCs (i.e. only people in the @Home network should be scanned by these addresses). 24.0.0.203 usually is used to scan for NNTP servers (I get scanned every two hours pretty much to the minute) which was put into place after the big Usenet threats against @Home. 24.0.94.130 scans clients for most known trojans and backdoors. If they find either they, as far as I have heard, shut down your connection until you fix it and contact them when they'll recheck to verify. Great service to avoid people being their worst enemy.
As a sidenote I previously disagreed with someone regarding whether there is a lot of NetBIOS traffic on @Home. At the time I claimed that I didn't get scanned for NetBIOS traffic. Turns out that it was the region I was in previously (Rogers@Home) where they filter out all NetBIOS traffic. Now that I'm in a different region (Cogeco@Home) I find that I'm getting NetBIOS scanned all the time. Out of curiousity occassionally I'll do a \\IP.IP.IP.IP back and find someone sharing their C, D, etc. drives. I don't know if it's an owned machine, or someone with a honeypot, but it's pretty funny nonetheless.
Is this a joke? Seriously how did this piece of crap end up on Slashdot which recently has become almost respectable and unbiased? The overwhelming absurdity of this article is beyond the imagination and anyone who actually believes it must be smoking some mighty strong crack (and NO ONE in software development will believe this shit and will immediately discredit this fool as exactly what he is : A pandering rumor monger eaking up hits however he can with absolutely no integrity or ethics).
HWND CreateWindow(LPCTSTR lpClassName,LPCTSTR lpWindowName,DWORD dwStyle,int x, int y, int nWidth, int nHeight, HWND hWndParent, HMENU hMenu, HINSTANCE hInstance, LPVOID lpParam) {
Unbelievable. If any of you believe this, please become luddites and get out of the software and computer businesses, because you're very stupid.
That guy is a very sad man indeed. He's so enormously petty it's PATHETIC. His little cry baby tirade when Intel didn't put him on the top of their Mac Daddy list when the 1.13 came out was absolutely absurd.
"But...but....I'm Tom Pabst! Respect me!"
Ah the fools perception of the stock market. Shorting a stock you have INFINITE liability yet the ability to make at most 100% back. Shorting is traditionally a higher "loser" ratio than betting on a company (because markets generally continue to march forward with slight declines). BTW : You can't short with "no money"-> Most financial firms require significant up front cash to short because of the enormous risk.
This is absolutely absurd. I remember when I was young and loved my Atari ST. One of the big selling points was that is a special, slideshot mode the machine could display 512 colours simultaneously. At the same time the Amiga could, in HAM mode, display 4096 colours. I remember questioning advocates though when they claimed that 512 colours was "more than the eye can see!". I've read the same thing now about 16-bit colour, then 24-bit colour, yet strangely many graphic artists insist upon 32-bit colour because of differentiations. I guess the human race is just evolving really quickly!
The same thing has happened with sound as well with people continually advocating that XYZ is "better than the ear can hear!" (i.e. the absurd MP3 argument that 128Kbps is better than the ear can hear : To put it simply -> Bullshit. Yet it's amazing hearing people telling us that).
A simple proof that this article is bogus is the fact that it claims that you 72 Hz is the optimum refresh rate. Hardly. On short persistence monitors 85Hz is barely adequate, and I guarantee that if presented with the various options I could easily tell the difference. Yet more importantly is the fact that computer images are instantaneous images, and multiple images in one eye "cycle" can lead to the blur which gives a massive amount of information : 190 images per second GUARANTEED looks different than 85 images per second. However getting to the fundamental of the argument, the reason that you want "200fps!" in Q3 or whathaveyou is that that is a best case or average frame rate, and the hope is that by getting such a frame rate it won't bog down when the rockets are flying and enemies are abound.
Well I've gone every which direction, but sorry this article seems like someone trying to justify why everyone else are idiots to get their GeForce II GTS 64MB while they lolly along with their ATI Rage. Blah.
Any management that thinks auditing is an effective way of encouraging good work ethics is insane and grossly inept and should be fireed immediately. Any manager that sees low productivity or low morale and thinks the solution is to start snooping on employee activities should give up and become a basket weaver. I am not kidding.
The only true measure of an employees worthiness is output and nothing but. This is a very important concept as we move to more telecommuting/contract type employment anyways (and boy will the lines get blurry when employers are monitoring employees in their own home). The vast majority of us in this business get paid by salary, not by punching a card in a clock, and while there are some general expectations regarding hours, generally the salary structure is based upon perforance not time. For our salary we are expected to contribute a certain amount of worth to the company versus the salary that we are receiving. If an employee doesn't contribute that worth then firstly examine the management structure and corporate supports to determine if they are the problem, and if not FIRE THEM. That is the only way to manage effectively in the information age. If you've got some company outcast sitting in a room packet scanning whether someone is using hotmail then you've got your priorities totally messed up : There are a million ways of wasting away time and if you think you're creating a super efficient workplace by totalitarianistic network policies then you are completely ignorant of the real world.
If you have a worker that you think might be dicking away a lot of time simply set goals and performance requirements and you should have a system in place that measures metrics (not keystrokes as that is worthless, but some other metric). Reward exceptional performance and punish under performance. The time an employee needs to accomplish that goals is irrelevant. Obviously if someone is sending offensive mail from a company email address that is poor judgement and should be punished, however if someone is sending emails to friends on Hotmail you really shouldn't give a shit if you have the performance metrics and good measurement systems. If you think you will improve the worthiness of your company by instituting superficial monitoring systems then you are will soon be out of a job as your company will be out of business.
BTW : For the corporate outcasts that feel the supreme justice of being the one's "in charge" of monitoring employees : Firstly these systems are never unbiased -> It is usually targetted at whichever persons these losers feel a dislike towards recently. Secondly there is no justification based upon what I was saying above (except for a few positions which are more time based : i.e. answering phones). Pathetic claims about "company resources" and the like are ridiculous. Do you abscond from drinking lest you use the sacred company water pissing? Do you partake of company provided refreshments? Do you happily request a 14" monitor over a 19" because really netmon runs just as good at 800x600? If not then shut up : The "wear and tear" on a computer system for someone to visit hotmail is rather minimal and of minimal costs.
logged in as Administrator, not as a user in the admin group
As a point of interest there is nothing special about the Administrator accont. In fact it's common practice to completely neuter that account to remove a known for hax3rs. All that really matters (usually) is the "Administrators" local group, or Domain Admins which has priviledges usually only because it belongs in the Administrators local group (and it gets added to every machine that joins the domains local Administrators group).
However how exactly are you trying to kill the process? If you mean pulling up task manager then no, that won't work. Task manager tries to ensure stability of the system by not allowing certain operations to occur, such as the killing of processes running as services (there are some esoteric other conditions that are imposed). However to get around that as mentioned use the kill command (reskit) or pskill which do not try to be so polite.
To have the "user right" to use these tools against a process the user (or a group the user belongs to) needs to have the user right "Debug a process" or something along those lines (in NT 4 you have to show advanced rights I believe). Technically kill is opening a debug connection to the process and then destroying it.
Cheers!
You are probably a MCSE (Minesweeper Certified Solitaire Expert), aren't you?
Damn, you got me. Indeed I am. I am not averse to knowing what I'm doing, as apparently you are.
I'm sorry, but http://your.server.com/global.asa+.htr returning the plain text file is just dangerous, and if you've fixed that exploit, just check securityfocus.com for more.
Oh gee your case is proven. Portmapper for Redhat let a user root compromise the system (with a handy little root console and everything). I suppose therefore, by your reasoning, Linux isn't viable as a secure system? That's absurd logic my friend. Every major piece of software on the planet has things that don't quite work as expected. BTW : If "Chicago Title and Trust" used sa as their login for their database then they're idiots. In any case what exactly did you plan on doing with that password/username? The reality is that in the majority of cases there's shit all you could do as they usually don't leave port 1433 open.
If you weren't a M$ lemming on crack, you might realize that Apache is easier to program than IIS and that programming for COM blows. (Yeah, I've done the ISAPI filters, ATL COM objects and ASP.) ASP and other script in content languages suck. Sorry, but Apache and Tomcat blow away IIS and ASP/COM in development time and application stability/security.
I can see from your posting that you're clearly not an immature, zealot who couldn't hack the real world so I'm going to have to look into your claims so I can do some learnin'. Thank you for learnin' me good oh keemoosabi. Let me get back to Apache 1.32 on my FreeBSD box you moron.
+------------------------------------------------Apache has better security, modularity, and better development support.
That should be suffixed by "IMHO". IIS uses the OS model of security, and the NT/2000 security model is extremely comprehensive. As far as modularity I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to however IIS has the modularity of any ISAPI filter, ISAPI module, CGI, and the script host scripting types (i.e. Add in as many scripting types as you want). Map file types to ISAPI filteres, etc. ANYTHING can be done with IIS. Hell even sticking with straight JScript and ASP you can implement an infinite variability of logic in COM objects. Regarding development support I hugely disagree with that. Firstly if using Perl the standard help holds true with some small changes. If using ASP there are a massive number of getting started help sites, and there is the MSDN which is an extraordinary help.
So in other words while I've said nothing about Apache, I have countered what you mentioned about IIS. Apache might be awesome, but IIS isn't chopped liver itself. It's actually quite a fantastic product however each use has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
You can split each virtual directory off as a separate process in NT 4, and with 2000 you have excellent granularity as far as chosing how to configure the server.
Inetinfo doesn't run as a kernel process, it runs as a user process in the system account. Secondly the service manager "requests" that inetinfo stop and any admin worth their salt knows that if the service is having troubles it won't respond to this friendly request and SCM has no other way of acting. In those cases you use your friendly "kill" command (in the resource kit or pskill from sysinternals.com) and either kill inetinfo.exe, or more acceptably you kill the out-of-process OLE object that your script created that is zombied and then shut down inetinfo.
It has been a long, long time since I've had to reboot a server because of a problem with IIS (i.e. there is no change to IIS that causes the server to have to be rebooted). Additionally a brain-dead IIS can be killed and then restarted. Of course on production servers the code is of a calibre that generally the service doesn't zombie, but developers have it happen a lot and know how to deal with it.
BTW : Your argument sounds like the foolish arguments back in the early days of linux when all hardware support was compiled in via make flags : That was a BENEFIT because it gave a super ultra customized kernel that was super duper optimized! Of course now Linux operates almost entirely like NT/2000 with loaded devices, as it should so the song has changed : Loadable modules rule! Apache is moving to a thread architecture (2.0?) versus spawning a separate process because it is ABSURD to spawn a process for every single user, and when that happens the same people who are now carrying on about the super stability of Apache will be talking about it's superior multithreading architecture.
It's interesting nonetheless.
Mine for several weeks have been showing almost nothing but port 137, 138, 139 shit
That is whacky. I'm talking about my personal machine sitting on the @Home network and my BSD firewall box has not seen a single attempt on any of the NetBIOS ports. Not one. I don't know where you are but are you perhaps on a corporate network and all your coworkers run Windows? ;-). Seriously though I find it odd that I haven't seen a single NetBIOS attempt and you say you are innundated with them.
Watching what that h4x3r5 are looking at is always quite interesting. Several attempts tonight have been to port 23 (telnet), and from a diverse crowd. I have a completely locked down firewall so it's not like they're hitting me as a known target, but rather this is network scanning. Why the sudden interest in telnet tonight?
On the topic of scans I will admit that scanning for SubSeven and BackOrifice has gone up MASSIVELY in the past 24 hours. Either someone has a distributed-scan going or some warez or software has gone out with one of these trojans and the kiddies are looking for the infected. Fascinating stuff though.
Cheers!
This all has nothing to do with Microsoft's design. In fact quite the opposite. NT/2000, like most modern operating systems, have a pervasive operating system that imposes security everywhere. Every registry key, every file, every service, every mutex, every object. Everything has an ACL (Access Control List) that allows massive granularity of security configurations. Of course by default most objects are configured as "Everyone" but using some standard utilities and a good admin that's quickly fixed.
That pervasive security model carries through to lots of other applications as well. In SQL Server I define which of the NT users have rights to access the database server, then the databases individually, then the individual objects. Actually you can configure specific columns with ACLs. However that is all lost the moment a project is done in too tight of a timeline and security takes a backseat : In that case you end up with "Domain Users" configured as db_owners and sysadmins. That is rampant and it has absolutely nothing to do with the operating system.
Microsoft gets slammed a lot for things which are the exact opposite of their intent. There is nothing inherently wrong with the OS model, there's something wrong with the priorities of some developers and some organizations.
I like how he was just clarifying information, and you had to spew this mindless drivel about how great linux is. Yes. We all know that. Moderators, can't you notice this karma whoring when you see it? You're getting played!
Uh are you being serious? My posting was a sarcastic play on the standard Slashdot-esque "open source is the solution to all mankinds ills" claims (i.e. read it again : I was actually saying quite the opposite of claiming the greatness of Linux). I think you have an ISAPI filter (;-p) that is parsing postings in a rather nasty way, totally obliterating the original intent.
In any case I find your comment that I am karma whoring interesting. To be honest I expected quite the opposite (i.e. to find that baby at a -1). I am getting to really respect the moderation of Slashdot because it is no longer "anything-pro-Linux=+++++++", "anything-not-pro-Linux=---------".
Apparently you haven't learned the lesson so many on Slashdot are trying continually to teach : All open source software is immune to holes, bugs, exploits, etc., because there are millions of industrious, highly skilled, hard working, always looking out for everyone else people hard at work code reviewing all of the code continuously. Microsoft, on the other hand, spits out scary trojan horse code that's easily cracked. At least that's the lesson I've `learned' here. If it's a negative story about Linux (i.e. hundreds of Linux machines have been exploited and are poised to be DDOS clients) it's FUD. If it's a negative story about Microsoft it needs to be yelled from the highest towers and if it isn't the top story on CNN for a week straight then it's a conspiracy.
It's getting intriguing because watching my firewall logs I am getting a TONNE of checks on ports (such as portmapper) that are known Linux exploits, and some that are known exploits (i.e. scans on certain UNIX services yet there are no issued warnings about those services). Apart from the thousands of Linux boxen 0Wn3D already because of the known issues (oh wait doesn't open source magically make the administrator/user a better person therefore they read bugtraq and carefully secure their machine? That's at least the story that I get from Slashdot. NT/2000 users : Stupid. Linux users : Super smart super geniuses!), there appear to be some people in the know about exploits that are yet to become public.
Security is everyone's concern regardless of OS, WWW server, etc.
Having been responsible for the creation of a number of websites using IIS I can say that I have NEVER put a password in any web page or asa's source. I either use an account with proper authentication for anonymous access (i.e. configuring the database to allow access from IWEB_), or I use a database guest account. These are absolute no brainers. If using a database system that doesn't integrate with NT Authentication I use the appropriate database guest account for anonymous access (and we are talking about anonymous access here).
Additionally security, as it always should be, should be very pervasive and built in many layers of the system. There should be a firewall eliminating anything but the appropriate access (obviously) so even if someone did have the database passwords there would be nothing they can do without getting past the firewall (note that this also requires locking down or removing RDS : Look in IIS for the virtual directory "msadc". If you don't need or use RDS get rid of it. It's potentially a backdoor into your DB). However the database should be running on a completely separate machine/domain trusting only the appropriate account from the IIS machine for severely restricted "public viewing" access. The database should be configured with appropriate permissions on every table (usually zero access for anyone), stored procedure, etc. Anonymous web access doesn't need to see the whole DB, and they definitely should never have write access, etc.
It's sad seeing so many house of cards systems being put up and security is a one layer design : If you get past that one layer you own the system.
BTW: If you run an IIS system go into Application Mappings and remove anything that you don't need. In the vast majority of cases all you need are ASP and ASA (and also enable "Check that File Exists" for these). There are lots of "opt-out" esoteric parsers that IIS bundles that 99.999% of the population never ever needs, and the problem is that because they're not scrutinized they often harbour gross security holes. If you don't need it, it shouldn't be in there. If a website reads from a database it should be using an account that has appropriate permissions, etc. These are all basics and they are true regardless of the operating system or web serving software.
Anyways have a good day all.
What sort of controls do you use? Just as a real aircraft doesn't use two keys on a keyboard to control the throttle, you shouldn't when playing a sim : A good analog throttle control is absolutely, positively mandatory. Additionally some form of analog independant rudder control is required to master the art of simulations. If you have those as well as the standard control service controls (a Sidewinder Precision Pro for instance) then you can master landing with ease time after time.
Prior to getting this stick I found landings extremely difficult and it was more a lucky crash when I did survive. Now I can land in Falcon 4 or FS 2000 under just about any condition with ease.
Most of my software development is for the power generation industry and I can say with pretty good authority that there are substantial power generation "Facilities" being deployed however they aren't the classic gigantic 300MW plant, but rather many 20MW micro-`plants' distributed throughout states. It simply makes more sense and due to a lot of convergence of technology it proves economically very effective.
Just came upon an example : 131.159.72.9.
As long as you have the full source, and can compile it yourself, this problem would not exist.
Wow you read every line of every product or port that you install? Wow. I just did a line count of my /usr/src/sys directory (free BSD) and came out with 795,565 lines of code : Let's guess that you can absorb and understand 6 lines of code a minute (GROSS OVERESTIMATION! The various dependencies and interrelaitons make it incredibly difficult to understand and reasonably follow large projects without a considerable time investment. As projects get larger the time per line increases exponentially) : In just 2,209 hours you'll be ready to install that software! Whoops you want to play Nethack 3 (hehe...I remember downloading that from a BBS way back when through a FTP-through-email relay. It was a massive download at the time and I believe I was responsible for plugging the internet pipe for a while for that BBS.) : That's another 363,961 lines of code for you to browse through (BTW: These are overstated values as I'm too lazy to fix the recursive line count script). I hope you don't dare to install it without reviewing it. Of course those other trustworthy guys must have thoroughly reviewed it....right...
Presuming software is safe because it's open source is a false belief. Hell recently I noticed my firewall was catching several packets outgoing from my BSD machine to curious destinations : I still don't know where they're coming from.
That's an idiotic reply. The issue at hand is that there's yet another method for people who we probably don't want tracking us (for whatever our reasons. No one has to justify to anyone else why they feel they deserve basic privacy) and it wasn't made apparent to most users. Many companies take privacy way too loosely and it's unfortunate that people like yourself feel that that's ay okay.
That is a VERY dangerous belief and one that demonstrates the pawns that people can become. Let me guess: Only terrorists use PGP? I've had this exact same debate with several unreasonable folks regarding PGP and their belief that there's nothing to hide and only criminals need to encrypt their messages: That is absurd and frightening. I point simply to the excellent forward to the PGP manual by Mr. Zimmerman regarding people's complete ignorance to privacy in the computer realm, yet they strangely seek privacy is far less trackable methods such as letter mail. The paradox is that in the computer realm email messages, surfing habits, etc. can be monitored in the billions of hits/messages and archived FOREVER, whereas someone trying to read people's letter mail or listen to voice conversations would require massive resources to operate.
Computers and the net in general allow for information to be gathered in absolutely massive quantities learning just about everything about all of us without privacy safeguards. What if you DID want to form an unbiased opinion about drugs (I'm not stating a stand here I'm merely giving an example) so you went searching out looking for material about the effects and statistics for illicit substances : Is that illegal? NO. That's the foundation of a democracy, but it falls crashing to the ground when idiots claim that there's no reason someone should be doing that so the jackbooted storm troopers go storming in to stop this 'illegal' activity. There aren't geniuses in ivory towers setting the rules and guiding our way, instead there are politicians who generally follow the publics whims. When the publics whims are based on ignorance or fear is that the way a democracy should work? Hardly. How can you question the way things are done if you are deprived of the methods to even do it? It is SCARY SHIT. Please read Animal Farm and 1984 by George Orwell as soon as you can. While this may seem extremist, it isn't whatsoever. They say that you get the government you deserve and that portends a very gloomy future given people's gross ignorance about their own privacy and rights.
No matter how much people yap about how this doesn't matter and they don't mind if marketers know, etc, you really do care you're just too naive to realize it. What if we started recording all your phone calls and I could grab them in Napster as MP3s? Your emails should be accessible as well so that we can peer review whether you're worthy as a human being. Hell we'd like to know you DNA structure so if there are any weaknesses you can be relegated to the mundane low-value positions lest you waste our time. Hell the second you look up any disease (no matter what your reaosn) we'll ensure that you can't get insurance and your bank refuses credit. If you look at porn you must be a child molestor : GET HIM UP AGAINST THE WALL!
Don't be a FUCKING IDIOT. There are so many people out there that are insanely naive it defies logic. Computers and the "information highway" bring a whole new ballgame to the table : One where privacy is astronomically more threatened than ever before. Yet previously where people would worry about their phone calls being monitored (why do new cell phones encrypt the messages? Must be a bunch of criminals!) or their mail being steamed open by secret operatives en route to Grandma in the next town, now people casually brush off technology that can permanently log every action, search phrase and browsing habit for life. Did you accidentally follow a goatsex link? Well I hope you don't get a job in upper management later in life because sometime somewhere they'll correlated IPs with users (hey what does it matter if those darn marketers use the information wisely?) and you'll be outed as a giant stretched anus loving freak. GET HIM UP AGAINST THE WALL!
Wise up.