Re:Whats the algorithm described in the book..
on
Hackers
·
· Score: 1
Well, it's been a long time since I read the book, but I believe it was the sleep( ) function. If I remember correctly, it was taking up most of the CPU time, so they optimized it, only to find they just wasted their time.
--
Re:Hacking, Cracking, my opinion.
on
Hackers
·
· Score: 1
Whacker: One who just pushes a button for evil.
I believe the correct term you're looking for is wanker.
It'd be interesting to see what a sort algorithm looked like or an optimized query to get the data back. Storing the data is only one part of the equation. If you can theoretically store infinite data, would you have to wait an inifinite amount of time to find a particular piece of datum?
Also, what of bit rot, particle mutation or the particle dying?
My understanding of it, was there were buying more than just the domain name. They were buying the whole site. Certainly the whole is more than the pieces, as it were. There has to be a distinction made between the two. Supposedly someone put a lot of work into it.
Absolutely. I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. I was talking about trends, not current events. My point was that as laws and restrictions pile up, it becomes harder and harder to even be aware of every law, let alone keep them. It is at that point that you get the situation I was talking about.
Someone made that point on slashdot a couple days back. The issue of ignorance of the law not being an excuse and how long ago, that might have been possible, but is impracticle today. I read somewhere a comparison between famous documents like The Constitition, The Declaration Of Independence, The Bible, etc and the tax code. The Bible had the most number of words (10,000 or some fairly low number). The tax code had over 7 million. Heck, there are laws on the books that no lawyer would convict you of. So, yea, it's hard to keep up.
I am not condoning breaking into computer systems, but I do have issues with that being a felony except in the most egregious of cases. And yes, it's an entirely different thing to be caught speeding. For one thing, you won't make national headlines for doing so. For another, it's not a felony.
Agreed. Like with any law, one would have to look at intent and consequences. Certainly a speeder could very well kill someone. But as others have mentioned, set up hacking contest between your friends or something. It's too easy to make a whoops that could cost people money, their career or even lives.
Do what I have started doing. Type up a document all legal sounding, thanking them for choosing your Document Storage Company (give it a cool name) and invoice them for the storage space. Give them an address to send the money to, and explain about the your monthly fee (per document) and the processing fee for either returning their document to them or deleting it from your system.
I am not a lawyer, so don't take that as legal advice, but my theory is, you have the right to charge someone for storing their car in your garage, or boxes in your attic - this is no different.
Don't you feel there's a difference between intentionally breaking into someone's computer system, and slightly speeding? In the first case, it's an intentional, willful act. In the second case, it's simply a matter of not being able to completely control your muscles to maintain a certain speed. Even the police officers give a grace speed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing speeding at all. However, it's much easier to plead your way out of a speeding ticket, than pleading your way out of an offense against cracking.
Depends on what you put on them. If you're putting your can of soda that you got out of the vending machine, then they work just fine. If you're putting a glass packed with ice, that will cause lots of condensation, then you might have a problem. Besides, the point is that you're saving the world from one more potential AOL cusotmer.
I have to agree with you. I'm constantly amazed that people in journalism either have no logical base or are masters of sensationalism. I think it's a little from column A and a little bit from column B. I've always wondered if they intentionally remain ignorant of issues, just so they can write such illogical remarks and get away with it. Statistics and technology seem to give them the hardest time.
I work as a web developer, and while fixing a website is work, it isn't that much work - a few minutes, max.
I always find this argument baffling. Just because it's not that hard to change a tire, doesn't mean I easily dismiss the fact that someone took it upon themselves to slash it. If someone knowingly breaks the law, then they should pay the consequences. Pure and simple. Nowhere in any state of federal statutes do I read that small corrective action allows anyone a free pass.
It'll be interesting to see if other states follow suit. Maybe making the penalty the same as breaking and entering/theft/destruction of property. I'm not sure how the current laws are, but if the law is written in such a way, then one might face multiple breaking and entering charges for destruction done by viruses. It would definitely send a message that attempting to expose the vulnerabilities of a system or just learning how the system works are not valid justifications for these actions. Who knows how this will all play out, in lieu of all the activity that is happening in technology law.
If someone broke into someone's home, I don't think the judge would accept, "They left their front door unlocked, so I wanted to show them their house was not secure."
Has anyone written a Quake-playing bot? Would be interesting to see how fast you could get it to play by learning the game, full speed or in some kind of "off-line" / "design"-mode.
You may be on to something. Let's dump the Turing Test and replace it with the Quake Test. It'll be the new benchmark.
Spllied ketchup on mlne once. Took the keys off and cieaned lt. Lt wasn't untli a month later, when someone trled to use my keyboard, that L realized L swltched a couple of keys when L put them back. Guess my typlng skllis were better than thlers.
"Well, this is how much it costs. Are you willing to pay?"
If yes, set sucker=True
If sucker==True, set cost_multiplier=1.25
If you defined a fuzzy set S then you could assign varying degress of their inclusion in the set of suckers and set the cost_multiplier based on this scale. This way you gain the maximum profit.
If they start using a costing by cookie method, how difficult would it be to set up a site that people could go to and download the "correct" cookie? With the plethora of people around, it wouldn't be too difficult to keep a near real-time record of who's doing what, and what the best cookies are.
This is great! Now we can automatically detect the invocation of Goodwin's law, have the account yanked after so many invocations and tabulate a winner.
Assuming that's true, hasn't it been illegal to use nerve gas for a long time? Or is it OK if it's our own people? Theoretically, is it OK for me to rig my house with lethal traps? It's the same scenerio. They wouldn't have gotten hosed, if they weren't in an unauthorized area.
You can't expect them to devote all that energy to what everyone is doing and get their stuff together at the same time. Besides, if they manage to neuter everyone else, what do they need security for?
I read articles similar to this every year. They make it sound like they are going to start getting on top of it, but nothing ever happens. It's pure window dressing.
It's not a cost issue. It's the fact that I have to deal with this at all. The fact that it takes 10 seconds or so to delete it, is irrelevant. We can't base what's right or wrong, based on the amount of time it takes to perform corrective action. This kind of argument angers me (nothing against you). I've never gotten a spam yet that I'm interested in. It's all garbage, many of them are scams. The spammers troll mailing lists and sites like this farming for email addresses.
I got one the other day. I called their 1-800 number. The telemarketer wouldn't even give me the name of a supervisor. He played it like he didn't even know what spam was. Other calls to the same place yielded the same results. They were obviously instructed what to do in cases like this. Obviously, not a very reputable outfit.
I can understand it, if I bought a book at barnesandnoble.com and get an advertisement in my email. But getting something from a forged email address, with a nonexistent address to remove oneself (or worse, one that works that gurantees you 10 times more spam), is unacceptable. --
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's been a long time since I read the book, but I believe it was the sleep( ) function. If I remember correctly, it was taking up most of the CPU time, so they optimized it, only to find they just wasted their time.
--
Whacker: One who just pushes a button for evil.
I believe the correct term you're looking for is wanker.
--
Software manufacturers will find a way to encrypt their software on these new distribution platforms.
Two weeks later, the encryption keys are distributed on slashdot.
Computer Science Curriculum will include more physics and less programming.
Stephen Hawkins will overthrow Microsoft and become the next Bill Gates.
--
It'd be interesting to see what a sort algorithm looked like or an optimized query to get the data back. Storing the data is only one part of the equation. If you can theoretically store infinite data, would you have to wait an inifinite amount of time to find a particular piece of datum?
Also, what of bit rot, particle mutation or the particle dying?
--
My understanding of it, was there were buying more than just the domain name. They were buying the whole site. Certainly the whole is more than the pieces, as it were. There has to be a distinction made between the two. Supposedly someone put a lot of work into it.
--
Absolutely. I didn't mean to give the wrong impression. I was talking about trends, not current events. My point was that as laws and restrictions pile up, it becomes harder and harder to even be aware of every law, let alone keep them. It is at that point that you get the situation I was talking about.
Someone made that point on slashdot a couple days back. The issue of ignorance of the law not being an excuse and how long ago, that might have been possible, but is impracticle today. I read somewhere a comparison between famous documents like The Constitition, The Declaration Of Independence, The Bible, etc and the tax code. The Bible had the most number of words (10,000 or some fairly low number). The tax code had over 7 million. Heck, there are laws on the books that no lawyer would convict you of. So, yea, it's hard to keep up.
I am not condoning breaking into computer systems, but I do have issues with that being a felony except in the most egregious of cases. And yes, it's an entirely different thing to be caught speeding. For one thing, you won't make national headlines for doing so. For another, it's not a felony.
Agreed. Like with any law, one would have to look at intent and consequences. Certainly a speeder could very well kill someone. But as others have mentioned, set up hacking contest between your friends or something. It's too easy to make a whoops that could cost people money, their career or even lives.
--
Do what I have started doing. Type up a document all legal sounding, thanking them for choosing your Document Storage Company (give it a cool name) and invoice them for the storage space. Give them an address to send the money to, and explain about the your monthly fee (per document) and the processing fee for either returning their document to them or deleting it from your system.
I am not a lawyer, so don't take that as legal advice, but my theory is, you have the right to charge someone for storing their car in your garage, or boxes in your attic - this is no different.
--
Don't you feel there's a difference between intentionally breaking into someone's computer system, and slightly speeding? In the first case, it's an intentional, willful act. In the second case, it's simply a matter of not being able to completely control your muscles to maintain a certain speed. Even the police officers give a grace speed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing speeding at all. However, it's much easier to plead your way out of a speeding ticket, than pleading your way out of an offense against cracking.
--
Depends on what you put on them. If you're putting your can of soda that you got out of the vending machine, then they work just fine. If you're putting a glass packed with ice, that will cause lots of condensation, then you might have a problem. Besides, the point is that you're saving the world from one more potential AOL cusotmer.
--
I have to agree with you. I'm constantly amazed that people in journalism either have no logical base or are masters of sensationalism. I think it's a little from column A and a little bit from column B. I've always wondered if they intentionally remain ignorant of issues, just so they can write such illogical remarks and get away with it. Statistics and technology seem to give them the hardest time.
--
I work as a web developer, and while fixing a website is work, it isn't that much work - a few minutes, max.
I always find this argument baffling. Just because it's not that hard to change a tire, doesn't mean I easily dismiss the fact that someone took it upon themselves to slash it. If someone knowingly breaks the law, then they should pay the consequences. Pure and simple. Nowhere in any state of federal statutes do I read that small corrective action allows anyone a free pass.
--
It'll be interesting to see if other states follow suit. Maybe making the penalty the same as breaking and entering/theft/destruction of property. I'm not sure how the current laws are, but if the law is written in such a way, then one might face multiple breaking and entering charges for destruction done by viruses. It would definitely send a message that attempting to expose the vulnerabilities of a system or just learning how the system works are not valid justifications for these actions. Who knows how this will all play out, in lieu of all the activity that is happening in technology law.
If someone broke into someone's home, I don't think the judge would accept, "They left their front door unlocked, so I wanted to show them their house was not secure."
--
Has anyone written a Quake-playing bot? Would be interesting to see how fast you could get it to play by learning the game, full speed or in some kind of "off-line" / "design"-mode.
You may be on to something. Let's dump the Turing Test and replace it with the Quake Test. It'll be the new benchmark.
--
AOL has supplied me with a lifetime of fancy coasters.
--
Oh, who I am kidding? I didn't read the article. But where can I get more of those pictures of Carrie Ann Moss?
--
Spllied ketchup on mlne once. Took the keys off and cieaned lt. Lt wasn't untli a month later, when someone trled to use my keyboard, that L realized L swltched a couple of keys when L put them back. Guess my typlng skllis were better than thlers.
--
Is it legal to print T-Shirts with both GPL and BSD code?
Only if it is signed using ink with RMS' DNA sample.
--
"Well, this is how much it costs. Are you willing to pay?"
If yes, set sucker=True
If sucker==True, set cost_multiplier=1.25
If you defined a fuzzy set S then you could assign varying degress of their inclusion in the set of suckers and set the cost_multiplier based on this scale. This way you gain the maximum profit.
--
If they start using a costing by cookie method, how difficult would it be to set up a site that people could go to and download the "correct" cookie? With the plethora of people around, it wouldn't be too difficult to keep a near real-time record of who's doing what, and what the best cookies are.
--
This is great! Now we can automatically detect the invocation of Goodwin's law, have the account yanked after so many invocations and tabulate a winner.
--
Assuming that's true, hasn't it been illegal to use nerve gas for a long time? Or is it OK if it's our own people? Theoretically, is it OK for me to rig my house with lethal traps? It's the same scenerio. They wouldn't have gotten hosed, if they weren't in an unauthorized area.
--
Hide it underground, under reinforced concrete, inside a faraday cage and behind a series of two foot blast doors.
That reminds me of this story. Good for a laugh, anyway.
--
You can't expect them to devote all that energy to what everyone is doing and get their stuff together at the same time. Besides, if they manage to neuter everyone else, what do they need security for?
I read articles similar to this every year. They make it sound like they are going to start getting on top of it, but nothing ever happens. It's pure window dressing.
--
You can see information about this here:
_ ease_online_fears_AmEx_plans_one_time_cr edit_cards+.shtml# 2243? tag=st.ne.1007.thed.ni
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/252/business/To
http://www.chainstoreage.com/news_desk/index.htm?
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1007-200-2718520.html
--
It's not a cost issue. It's the fact that I have to deal with this at all. The fact that it takes 10 seconds or so to delete it, is irrelevant. We can't base what's right or wrong, based on the amount of time it takes to perform corrective action. This kind of argument angers me (nothing against you). I've never gotten a spam yet that I'm interested in. It's all garbage, many of them are scams. The spammers troll mailing lists and sites like this farming for email addresses.
I got one the other day. I called their 1-800 number. The telemarketer wouldn't even give me the name of a supervisor. He played it like he didn't even know what spam was. Other calls to the same place yielded the same results. They were obviously instructed what to do in cases like this. Obviously, not a very reputable outfit.
I can understand it, if I bought a book at barnesandnoble.com and get an advertisement in my email. But getting something from a forged email address, with a nonexistent address to remove oneself (or worse, one that works that gurantees you 10 times more spam), is unacceptable.
--