Microsoft claims that Back Orifice 2000 does not exploit any security vulnerabilities in Windows 2000.
Conversely, the Cult of the Dead Cow claims that "Unfortunately for Microsoft, Back Orifice 2000 could bring pressure on the software leviathan to finally implement a security model in their Windows operating system. Failure to do so would leave customers vulnerable to malicious attacks from crackers using tools that exploit Windows' breezy defenses."
I don't think the B02k installation procedure requires the recipient/installer to be root/Administrator for the payload to be delivered.
I really liked this book-- however, Cryptonomicon is not perfect.
It seems Stephenson is at his best when describing some fascinating technical artifact or mathematical algorithm. I really enjoyed those parts of the book, but I would have enjoyed the book more had Stephenson worked more on the ending.
The other problem was that the copy I read (1st printing) is simply riddled with typographical errors. Characters are given the wrong lines of dialog, a cypher key is wrong, and there are spelling mistakes aplenty. These will probably be rectified in later editions, but it makes me wonder if this tome was rushed to market before its time.
I have the same problem-- moving my PS/2 mouse causes a buzzing noise. It could well be a problem with my hardware setup, but I've noticed it with several cards.
First Setup-- el-cheapo OPL-3SAX card (I think) with a Trident 975 graphics card.
Second: Creative Labs AudioPCI (ES1371) with Trident 975
Current Setup: ES1371 sound card with i740 graphics card
The CDROM drive does seem to produce a lot of noise, though. It's an ACER 32x model. This model seems to have a really shitty D/A converter-- s/n is ~75 dB. The noise comes in on the CD channel.
I don't think the differents between anonymity and pseudonymity is all that great. In the 18th century, the use of pseudonyms in political speech was not uncommon. The Federalist Papers were originally attributed to "Publius" are now known to be written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. The Anti-Federalist Papers were written under such pseudonyms as "Cato" and "Brutus." In 1769 papers alleging government corrubtion in England were promulgated by one "Junius," now believed to be Sir Phillip Sydney. These pseudonyms were chosen carefully and their allusions to classical Roman politics both reflected the political fashion of the day and reminded readers of the corruption and intrigue of a previous republic. Were they to be submitted without name --anonymously-- thay might not have recieved so much attention. Primary Colors is now known to have been written by Joe Klein. The original author, however, was only known by his pseudonym, "Anonymous." I refer to his usage as Psuedonymity, because Klein adopted his nom de guerre purely for reasons of noteriety. Pure Anonymity implies that one cannot read anything into the identity of the author. In writing as "A view from within" the author adopted a pseudonym. Historically, though, both anonymous and pseudonymous speech has been protected, and much of the case law dealing with such speech concerns authors previously known only as "a concerned citizen" or "citizens against government waste." Woodward identified his source by the pseudonym "Deep Throat," in an effort to protect the informer's anonymity. There really is very little difference.
In the McIntyre case, the court protected the right of a woman to distribute anonymous handbills expressing her opposition to a referendum. In the Talley case, the courts protected the rights of a protestor to distribute anonymous leaflets alleging employment discrimination. Both distribution attempts violated local ordinances banning anonymous communication.
In Talley the court stated that "Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
The court has recognized in McIntyre a general right to anonymous speech, finding that "[t]he decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. "
In both of these decisions, the court noted that the highest protections should be given to political speech.
As I recall, Cmdr Taco has assurred us that slashdot doesn't store records of Anonymous Cowards. Whether he would be required to turn over the identities corresponding to named accounts is an open question.
To the dismay of some, the best prophylactic against subpoenas may be to increase the level of political discussion on slashdot. Since accounts could be used to post protected anonymous opinions, it might well infringe on protected free speech rights to reveal the actual owner...
It's rather snide of you to declare that borders are 'obsolete notions.' If that's true, you'd better remove the lock on your door. I don't care what the rules are that obsolete notion you call 'your house,' in the big world we all live in, I like to smash in computer monitors with a ball-peen hammer. Don't you dare try preventing me from having my fun. It's my right, and there aren't any borders any longer.
Actually, I've heard this from many internet Utopians, and it's not a frivolous notion. In many places, the political and cultural climes were such that many forms of media were simply not available before the advent of the Internet. For instance, I have access to foreign newspapers over the Internet, and my access is not dependent on paying a fortune to a importer delivering week old papers. In that sense, the geographical borders between myself and Europe are essentially irrelevant. During the coup in Russia, traditional media was cut off, but some people were able to communicate using the Internet.
A border is not limited to the minefield and barbed wire fence around your home. Often a border is a arbitrary creation of state. That state may not be completely compatible with desires and needs of its citizens.
All I can say is "try to find a local ISP." This, however, is harder than it sounds. The ISPs that offer the most bandwidth are likely to be multistate, exposing their users to this kind of harassment. The "local" phone company offering that coveted DSL or the cable company offering high-speed service may be headquartered thousands of miles away.
This does do damage to the notion of the Internet as something of a worldwide phenomenon, unaffected by such obsolete notions as borders. I think the latest issue of "Communications of the ACM" (June 1999) has a short article on Chinese Internet infrastructure. It is quite enlightening-- as the main purpose of ChinaNet is geared toward maintaining state control...
Re:Whoever discovers it gets to name it, yes?
on
Element 118 detected
·
· Score: 1
IUPAC is to be disregarded and possesses no special powers to name elements. Stuff like this is the epitome of how science has become a bureaucracy of rules, regulations, red tape, and political wrangling, than about actually expanding human knowledge. IUPAC decides on conventions. If you want to adopt your own names for chemicals, you can. Just don't expect to be understood. Personally, I find their system to be preferable to learning millions of proprietary names. In addition, it's nice to know whether to call whether Dubnium refers to element 104 or 105. By the way, IUPAC admits that its recommendations carry no legal force. And their system is certainly preferalble to that of Ludwig Plutonium
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry is the ultimate arbiter of such things... Ess Right now elements 116 and 118 are named with rather non-aesthetic and rather litaeral names ("the 116th element" and "the 118th element." Presumably, the lead investigator will get to pick a more exciting name later. I would be dissapointed if the paper was delayed in publication because the primary investigator couldn't think of an apt name.
I've heard that the companies requesting data will be expected to seek permission from the people they are seeking data on. But Caliornia has no plans to enforce this requirement, except through the honor system.
Their greed will get the better of them. I wonder how many years it will be until some bright Senator gets the idea that the Census Bureau could sell personal (rather than demographic) data to the highest bidders.
Before you can solve a problem using a computer you need to know how to solve the problem. Here is an analogy: if you don't know how to get somewhere, getting a faster car will not help you get there.
I disagree. Advances in supercomputing allow a scientist to simulate ever more complex phenomenon. Supercomputing is rarely about instant results. Many simulations can take up years and months of supercomputer time. Any increase in computaional power is spent on increasing the complexity of the simulation, and not on reducing simulation time.
In Cosmology, many of the theoretical underpinnings have only been proved mathematically. Applying these theorums to empirical results requires a great deal of computational power. Some problems are known to be unsolvable at the moment, because the computational requirements can not be met by current technology.
Isn't this waht they used PCBs (Polychloryl Biphenyls) for in the old days? Of course, environmental regulations/ethics pretty much rules out that solution.
Linux and Unix are not the same. It is not likely that the source will be available, so the Solaris verion of IE would be rather non-useful to a Linux user.
Microsoft has admitted to supporting various forms of Unix, or at least recongnizing their existance. It has not publically admitted to the existance of Linux (except in the Halloween documents and a few PR documents. A Linux version of IE would be interesting change. It could even herald the arrival of Microsoft Linux-- the only kernal with a built-in browser.
He was the driving force in getting House bills and proceedings on the Internet in a timely enough fashion so that the people could actually keep tabs on what their congresscritters were actually doing (assuming one had the time and inclination to do so). He also voted for the Communications Decency Act...
Seriously, I can't think of Toffler without thinking about Newt Gingrich. And to be honest, I hate the former speaker. I think when Gingrich left office, he had a popularity "rating" of 18% or so. So, did Gingrich misunderstand Toffler? Is Toffler a "right-wing" nut? Can Toffler redeem himself?
Well, there are certain reasons to avoid American televison... I don't watch CBS News, or NBC News, or ABC News. I listen to NPR and watch ITN or BBC. I also read two good daily newspapers. So FRY v. NATO is not news to me. Personally, I dont think the case has much merit, and using Serbia-Info to extract information about the case seems to me as foolish as using Microsoft's PR department to get a handle on US v. Microsoft. If you want a unbiased look at this particular court case, the World Court Docket may or may not be useful.
Serbia-info is certainly selective with the truth. A large part of it seems to be badly written paraphrases of articales in the western media.
That's a difficult choice there: Do I read the original column, or do I read a paraphrase of an English article, and then translated back by a less than fluent translater.
No one media outlet has a monopoly on the truth. I enjoy reading the New York Times, the Washington Post, and viewing ITN and the BBC, and sometimes I am irked by the government line. But Serbia Info is a propaganda vehicle -- nothing more and nothing less.
The fact that the "Serbian Ministry of Information" is plastered across the web-page testifies to this.
The absence of a constitutional guaranteur of free speech is not in itself demonstrative of an oppressive, censorious regime. The existance of a sedition law, or a requirement that press agencies be licensed on a yearly basis, often is.
I feel perfectly justified in pointing to Malaysia or Sinagapore to assert my points. The Anwar Ibrahim trial has shown the the current government of Malaysia does not have any tolerance for a free press.
Singapore's government has a relationship with the press that is widely considered to be to the detriment of "free speech." I know, I know -- it's a corrupt Western value.
Limiting "fair use" and strengthening copyright and trademark protections has not generally been a major focus of despots, autocrats, and statist regimes.The United States has proposed all kinds of draconian measures applying to databases. Many "rogue states," to use the American pejorative of the moment, have historically enjoyed the benefits of counterfeiting and media piracy.
But that is not to say that Intellectual Property laws are a hallmark of all that is good in government. I'm sure Malaysia and Singapore have used their laws on the subject to harrass and intimidate journalists.
I usually disagree with the Cato Institute, but every so often, their views will mesh with mine. The anti CDA essay NEW AGE COMSTOCKERY: EXON VS. THE INTERNET is a good example.
No, the cost to the consumer matters. Let us say that I am a consumer looking for Amazon. I've heard good things about Amazon- and I want to order some books. I click on a link- It takes me to "Amazon Basin Booksellers." I know nothing about this store, and decide not to buy from them. I click back, and eventually find a link corresponding to "Amazon.com."
Contrast that to the court's analogy of video stores and highway exits. I enter into the first store, I'm rushed for time, and decide to buy. It would take me 10 or 20 minutes in heavy traffic to find my way back to my original planned destination. There is a considerable disincentive for me to search for the "corect" video store...
In the opinion, the ninth circuit compared the use of the meta tag to a street sign, falsely directing motorists to a competitor. The analogy is flawed.
The problem is that for all of the silly arguments comparing the internet to a road (as in Internet Superhighway), the internet remains a computer network where the cost of traversing links is not as significant as taking the wrong exit.
For example, if I knew that a certain book was either in Timbuktoo, or in Kyoto, but not in both cities, going to the wrong city would be extremely costly. If I used the internet, the cost of a wrong choice would be substantially smaller.
Traversal of http links is not significantly bond by geography, and users have become inured to the fact thet search engines often do not give the right answer. I can search through a list of 50-200 links in a very short period of time. In addition, most search engines provide a short desrciption and a title. It's not as though the Altavista engine reports them as Link 1 -- Link 200. I can scan the list until I see something about "Moviebuff Software".
Slashdot Mirror
Conversely, the Cult of the Dead Cow claims that "Unfortunately for Microsoft, Back Orifice 2000 could bring pressure on the software leviathan to finally implement a security model in their Windows operating system. Failure to do so would leave customers vulnerable to malicious attacks from crackers using tools that exploit Windows' breezy defenses."
I don't think the B02k installation procedure requires the recipient/installer to be root/Administrator for the payload to be delivered.
I really liked this book-- however, Cryptonomicon is not perfect.
It seems Stephenson is at his best when describing some fascinating technical artifact or mathematical algorithm. I really enjoyed those parts of the book, but I would have enjoyed the book more had Stephenson worked more on the ending.
The other problem was that the copy I read (1st printing) is simply riddled with typographical errors. Characters are given the wrong lines of dialog, a cypher key is wrong, and there are spelling mistakes aplenty. These will probably be rectified in later editions, but it makes me wonder if this tome was rushed to market before its time.
I have the same problem-- moving my PS/2 mouse causes a buzzing noise. It could well be a problem with my hardware setup, but I've noticed it with several cards.
First Setup-- el-cheapo OPL-3SAX card (I think) with a Trident 975 graphics card.
Second: Creative Labs AudioPCI (ES1371) with Trident 975
Current Setup: ES1371 sound card with i740 graphics card
The CDROM drive does seem to produce a lot of noise, though. It's an ACER 32x model. This model seems to have a really shitty D/A converter-- s/n is ~75 dB. The noise comes in on the CD channel.
I don't think the differents between anonymity and pseudonymity is all that great. In the 18th century, the use of pseudonyms in political speech was not uncommon. The Federalist Papers were originally attributed to "Publius" are now known to be written by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison. The Anti-Federalist Papers were written under such pseudonyms as "Cato" and "Brutus." In 1769 papers alleging government corrubtion in England were promulgated by one "Junius," now believed to be Sir Phillip Sydney. These pseudonyms were chosen carefully and their allusions to classical Roman politics both reflected the political fashion of the day and reminded readers of the corruption and intrigue of a previous republic. Were they to be submitted without name --anonymously-- thay might not have recieved so much attention. Primary Colors is now known to have been written by Joe Klein. The original author, however, was only known by his pseudonym, "Anonymous." I refer to his usage as Psuedonymity, because Klein adopted his nom de guerre purely for reasons of noteriety. Pure Anonymity implies that one cannot read anything into the identity of the author. In writing as "A view from within" the author adopted a pseudonym. Historically, though, both anonymous and pseudonymous speech has been protected, and much of the case law dealing with such speech concerns authors previously known only as "a concerned citizen" or "citizens against government waste." Woodward identified his source by the pseudonym "Deep Throat," in an effort to protect the informer's anonymity. There really is very little difference.
In the McIntyre case, the court protected the right of a woman to distribute anonymous handbills expressing her opposition to a referendum. In the Talley case, the courts protected the rights of a protestor to distribute anonymous leaflets alleging employment discrimination. Both distribution attempts violated local ordinances banning anonymous communication.
In Talley the court stated that "Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment."
The court has recognized in McIntyre a general right to anonymous speech, finding that "[t]he decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry. Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. "
In both of these decisions, the court noted that the highest protections should be given to political speech.
As I recall, Cmdr Taco has assurred us that slashdot doesn't store records of Anonymous Cowards. Whether he would be required to turn over the identities corresponding to named accounts is an open question.
To the dismay of some, the best prophylactic against subpoenas may be to increase the level of political discussion on slashdot. Since accounts could be used to post protected anonymous opinions, it might well infringe on protected free speech rights to reveal the actual owner...
It's rather snide of you to declare that borders are 'obsolete notions.' If that's true, you'd better remove the lock on your door. I don't care what the rules are that obsolete notion you call 'your house,' in the big world we all live in, I like to smash in computer monitors with a ball-peen hammer. Don't you dare try preventing me from having my fun. It's my right, and there aren't any borders any longer.
Actually, I've heard this from many internet Utopians, and it's not a frivolous notion. In many places, the political and cultural climes were such that many forms of media were simply not available before the advent of the Internet. For instance, I have access to foreign newspapers over the Internet, and my access is not dependent on paying a fortune to a importer delivering week old papers. In that sense, the geographical borders between myself and Europe are essentially irrelevant. During the coup in Russia, traditional media was cut off, but some people were able to communicate using the Internet.
A border is not limited to the minefield and barbed wire fence around your home. Often a border is a arbitrary creation of state. That state may not be completely compatible with desires and needs of its citizens.
All I can say is "try to find a local ISP." This, however, is harder than it sounds. The ISPs that offer the most bandwidth are likely to be multistate, exposing their users to this kind of harassment. The "local" phone company offering that coveted DSL or the cable company offering high-speed service may be headquartered thousands of miles away.
This does do damage to the notion of the Internet as something of a worldwide phenomenon, unaffected by such obsolete notions as borders. I think the latest issue of "Communications of the ACM" (June 1999) has a short article on Chinese Internet infrastructure. It is quite enlightening-- as the main purpose of ChinaNet is geared toward maintaining state control...
IUPAC is to be disregarded and possesses no special powers to name elements. Stuff like this is the epitome of how science has become a bureaucracy of rules, regulations, red tape, and political wrangling, than about actually expanding human knowledge. IUPAC decides on conventions. If you want to adopt your own names for chemicals, you can. Just don't expect to be understood. Personally, I find their system to be preferable to learning millions of proprietary names. In addition, it's nice to know whether to call whether Dubnium refers to element 104 or 105. By the way, IUPAC admits that its recommendations carry no legal force. And their system is certainly preferalble to that of Ludwig Plutonium
The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry is the ultimate arbiter of such things... Ess
Right now elements 116 and 118 are named with rather non-aesthetic and rather litaeral names ("the 116th element" and "the 118th element." Presumably, the lead investigator will get to pick a more exciting name later. I would be dissapointed if the paper was delayed in publication because the primary investigator couldn't think of an apt name.
I've heard that the companies requesting data will be expected to seek permission from the people they are seeking data on. But Caliornia has no plans to enforce this requirement, except through the honor system.
Their greed will get the better of them. I wonder how many years it will be until some bright Senator gets the idea that the Census Bureau could sell personal (rather than demographic) data to the highest bidders.
Before you can solve a problem using a computer you need to know how to solve the problem. Here is an analogy: if you don't know how to get somewhere, getting a faster car will not help you get there.
I disagree. Advances in supercomputing allow a scientist to simulate ever more complex phenomenon. Supercomputing is rarely about instant results. Many simulations can take up years and months of supercomputer time. Any increase in computaional power is spent on increasing the complexity of the simulation, and not on reducing simulation time.
In Cosmology, many of the theoretical underpinnings have only been proved mathematically. Applying these theorums to empirical results requires a great deal of computational power. Some problems are known to be unsolvable at the moment, because the computational requirements can not be met by current technology.
He could be using 2 Voodoo2s in SLI mode, and a third graphics card for 2D stuff...
Isn't this waht they used PCBs (Polychloryl Biphenyls) for in the old days? Of course, environmental regulations/ethics pretty much rules out that solution.
Linux and Unix are not the same. It is not likely that the source will be available, so the Solaris verion of IE would be rather non-useful to a Linux user.
Microsoft has admitted to supporting various forms of Unix, or at least recongnizing their existance. It has not publically admitted to the existance of Linux (except in the Halloween documents and a few PR documents. A Linux version of IE would be interesting change. It could even herald the arrival of Microsoft Linux-- the only kernal with a built-in browser.
C++ hello world linked with just libc: 3296 k
almost 4 meg for "Hello World"? That's just... incredible.
and wrong on many others...
He was the driving force in getting House bills and proceedings on the Internet in a timely enough fashion so that the people could actually keep tabs on what their congresscritters were actually doing (assuming one had the time and inclination to do so). He also voted for the Communications Decency Act...
The master author of "1945" himself. Wow!
Seriously, I can't think of Toffler without thinking about Newt Gingrich. And to be honest, I hate the former speaker. I think when Gingrich left office, he had a popularity "rating" of 18% or so. So, did Gingrich misunderstand Toffler? Is Toffler a "right-wing" nut? Can Toffler redeem himself?
Well, there are certain reasons to avoid American televison... I don't watch CBS News, or NBC News, or ABC News. I listen to NPR and watch ITN or BBC. I also read two good daily newspapers. So FRY v. NATO is not news to me. Personally, I dont think the case has much merit, and using Serbia-Info to extract information about the case seems to me as foolish as using Microsoft's PR department to get a handle on US v. Microsoft. If you want a unbiased look at this particular court case, the World Court Docket may or may not be useful.
Serbia-info is certainly selective with the truth. A large part of it seems to be badly written paraphrases of articales in the western media.
That's a difficult choice there: Do I read the original column, or do I read a paraphrase of an English article, and then translated back by a less than fluent translater.
No one media outlet has a monopoly on the truth. I enjoy reading the New York Times, the Washington Post, and viewing ITN and the BBC, and sometimes I am irked by the government line. But Serbia Info is a propaganda vehicle -- nothing more and nothing less.
The fact that the "Serbian Ministry of Information" is plastered across the web-page testifies to this.
The absence of a constitutional guaranteur of free speech is not in itself demonstrative of an oppressive, censorious regime. The existance of a sedition law, or a requirement that press agencies be licensed on a yearly basis, often is.
I feel perfectly justified in pointing to Malaysia or Sinagapore to assert my points. The Anwar Ibrahim trial has shown the the current government of Malaysia does not have any tolerance for a free press.
Singapore's government has a relationship with the press that is widely considered to be to the detriment of "free speech." I know, I know -- it's a corrupt Western value.
Limiting "fair use" and strengthening copyright and trademark protections has not generally been a major focus of despots, autocrats, and statist regimes.The United States has proposed all kinds of draconian measures applying to databases. Many "rogue states," to use the American pejorative of the moment, have historically enjoyed the benefits of counterfeiting and media piracy.
But that is not to say that Intellectual Property laws are a hallmark of all that is good in government. I'm sure Malaysia and Singapore have used their laws on the subject to harrass and intimidate journalists.
I usually disagree with the Cato Institute, but every so often, their views will mesh with mine. The anti CDA essay NEW AGE COMSTOCKERY: EXON VS. THE INTERNET is a good example.
No, the cost to the consumer matters. Let us say that I am a consumer looking for Amazon. I've heard good things about Amazon- and I want to order some books. I click on a link- It takes me to "Amazon Basin Booksellers." I know nothing about this store, and decide not to buy from them.
I click back, and eventually find a link corresponding to "Amazon.com."
Contrast that to the court's analogy of video stores and highway exits. I enter into the first store, I'm rushed for time, and decide to buy. It would take me 10 or 20 minutes in heavy traffic to find my way back to my original planned destination. There is a considerable disincentive for me to search for the "corect" video store...
In the opinion, the ninth circuit compared the use of the meta tag to a street sign, falsely directing motorists to a competitor. The analogy is flawed.
The problem is that for all of the silly arguments comparing the internet to a road (as in Internet Superhighway), the internet remains a computer network where the cost of traversing links is not as significant as taking the wrong exit.
For example, if I knew that a certain book was either in Timbuktoo, or in Kyoto, but not in both cities, going to the wrong city would be extremely costly. If I used the internet, the cost of a wrong choice would be substantially smaller.
Traversal of http links is not significantly bond by geography, and users have become inured to the fact thet search engines often do not give the right answer. I can search through a list of 50-200 links in a very short period of time. In addition, most search engines provide a short desrciption and a title. It's not as though the Altavista engine reports them as Link 1 -- Link 200. I can scan the list until I see something about "Moviebuff Software".