The entire 127/8 is reserved for loopback purposes
Actually, 128 is not reserved for that purpose. Consider this:
Nah, he was using 127/8 as a netblock representation. saying 127/8 is equivalent to saying 127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0, just as saying 192.168/16 is shorthand for 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0
I didn't realize that some of the unices out there didn't respond to the other loopback IPs, though.
Slashdot. Hopefully everyone gets to learn something (relatively useless) today:-)
Get yourself a modded xbox or a media-center PC and all of a sudden that external hard drive becomes available through your regular TV interface.
I started late on Lost. Watched episodes 8 and 12, decided to go back and see the first ones. Bittorrent to the rescue.
Now that I'm caught up, I watched last night's episode on my TV from my local cable broadcast. Quality absolutely sucked, even though I was still using the same TV to watch it. I'll just watch it from the torrents from now on.
I'd be happy to pay a monthly subscription of around ten dollars, so I could get access to tv shows without being branded a criminal
And this is where AOL / Time Warner really missed the boat.
Can you imagine how many new AOL Broadband subscribers there would be if your $20 / month fee included the ability to watch all of the previous seasons Sopranos? or Carnivale?
Windows is nice enough for most people to use. It's only a relatively small group of zealots who think otherwise.
Yes, but that relatively small group is growing with each and every major exploit that comes out, and every time Joe Sixpack has to take his computer into the shop (again) for another $95 session removing spyware and viruses from his machine.
It would be great if Linux was to the point where it was an option for this, but it's not. Apple takes the best parts of unix and combines them with a simple, intuitive interface and decent support. And now they do it for $500. Personally, I'm impressed by that.
The choice of an IT department is all about TCO and productivity. Will dumping Microsoft Office and moving to OO save money? You'll need to retrain, and productivity will be lower until everyone is comfortable with the new environment. But, you won't have software licensing costs. Future IT budget can go to hardware, jobs, pretzels, etc. in the next few years instead of going to Microsoft.
Software licensing costs for MS Office are surprisingly low once you've got about 200 seats to deal with. Add in to that the fact that they include Exchange CALs and you _really_ don't end up saving much money unless you can also ditch your Exchange server. It's _really_ hard to convince upper management to do that, I've tried.
I've also tried Evolution as a front-end for exchange, it's a better solution than was out there before (read: none) but it's still not up to the quality of Outlook for things such as public folders and calendar free/busy schedules. What's funny is that Microsoft's own Entourage for the Mac is similarly bad for those features.
Evolution does a much better job of eliminating email viruses, though.
And if that's not enough... The Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer (5 buttons, if you include the scroll wheel) works quite nicely, even allowing you to assign keystrokes to buttons. I've set my scroll wheel button up to activate Expose.
And if you haven't used Expose yet... man, that's cool stuff. Good-bye Alt-tab.
(BTW - I took Slashdotter advice from yesterday's article about the Mini and hardware upgrades and went with 512MB. I couldn't justify the $210 for 1GB when 512 was only $80). I am not looking forward to using two thin putty knives to open my brand new machine though. Why couldn't they have just made it user serviceable for RAM?
If you spent $80 on a DIY RAM kit, why didn't you just buy the machine with 512MB of RAM from the factory? It only costs $75 extra...
I didn't get the Mini because it was small, quiet, or good looking. I got it because OS X is not Windows, is built on BSD, is now affordable, and isn't as susceptible to all the bullshit that my Windows machines are. If anything the Mini might open the door to more users for Apple which may or may not be a good thing;)
I've spent the last 4 or 5 months making a transition from a Windows desktop to Linux. I'm still not done with it, as there are still some things that are either much more complex or impossible to do under Linux that come quite easily in Windows. I got my Mac Mini a week ago and I'm already feature-compatible with my Linux Desktop... Now I just need to tackle the rest of the windows tasks:-)
Of course, once you realize that, the opportunity to rant via creative misspellings about how nobody cares about Microsoft on OSX is lost, so perhaps you should just ignore this post and carry on as you were.
My guess is that they do because the memory is claimed to be upgradable only at an authorized service center, but in the "box open" shots on the apple site, it's pretty clearly sitting in a DIMM slot alongside the drive bay.
I've just ordered one. Total came to $1100 after I tricked it out with: 1.42 GHz G4 512MB RAM Superdrive Wireless Airport Extreme / Bluetooth adapter 3 Year Warranty
Drop a few bucks on an LCD panel display (they run really cool, so wrapping them in plastic shouldn't be an issue if you don't run them that way 24 / 7) and then get your keyboard covered with the plastic skin linked at the top of the comments. Use something like an Apex cat5 KVM converter to allow you to control a box back in the safety of your office.
Something like this for example would allow you to skip the whole "buy a second PC" and just control your existing PC from the shop
But this is all beside the point, as you've once again tried to make this thread about a Mozilla vs Microsoft Browser Flame War. The _point_ is that these exploits are NOT new. If you pay attention to Slashdot (or any one of another of security-related websites) and happen to run IE, you've already been notified about this problem, and if you're smart, you've already done something about this.
Again. This entire article was posted only because no one bothered to actually read the article and realize that it was a minor update to a known vulnerability. If the article was worded that way, I wouldn't be here ranting about it, but it's made out to be a new vulnerability.
No, What I'm telling you is that this article was written and posted to provide fodder for a flame war.
You are still vulnerable because Microsoft has determined that this vulnerability is:
a) unpatchable without ruining the functionality of the product
and / or
b) not a large enough threat to worry about.
Now I'm _not_ going argue whether either of these points is correct or not. But to present these as "New exploits" is typical Slashdot anti-journalism. they did the same thing when they announced the "New" vulnerabilities for Firefox a few days ago. Those were not new either, but neither the submitters or editors bothered to read the articles that were submitted.
This is NOT a new vulnerability. This is an upgraded severity on a vulnerability that was reported almost 3 months ago:
From the article: Secunia Advisory: SA12889 Print Advisory Release Date: 2004-10-20 Last Update: 2005-01-07...
Changelog: 2004-10-21: Updated advisory. 2004-10-28: Added another workaround in "Solution" section and linked to Microsoft Knowledge Base article. 2004-11-02: Updated with additional information in "Description" and "Solution" section. 2004-11-29: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul. 2004-12-23: Added link to US-CERT vulnerability note. 2004-12-25: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul and Michael Evanchik. 2005-01-07: Increased rating. Added link to test. Updated "Description" and "Solution" sections.
So they upped the severity rating and added another workaround. This isn't really news. You've been vulnerable to this for almost 3 months now.
From the article: Secunia Advisory: SA12889 Print Advisory Release Date: 2004-10-20 Last Update: 2005-01-07...
Changelog: 2004-10-21: Updated advisory. 2004-10-28: Added another workaround in "Solution" section and linked to Microsoft Knowledge Base article. 2004-11-02: Updated with additional information in "Description" and "Solution" section. 2004-11-29: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul. 2004-12-23: Added link to US-CERT vulnerability note. 2004-12-25: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul and Michael Evanchik. 2005-01-07: Increased rating. Added link to test. Updated "Description" and "Solution" sections.
So they upped the severity rating and added another workaround. This isn't really news. you've been vulnerable to this for almost 3 months now.
Re:TurboTax for the web sucks (Score:1) by ICA (237194) Alter Relationship on Saturday January 08, @09:45PM (#11301295) Okay, I tried...and I was successful. Go to turbotaxonline.com right now, click on the link at the bottom that says view last years return (in fact you can see the past several years) and login.
And if I remember correctly, paying for the Turbo Tax web service automatically enrolls you in myturbotax.com for free, which keeps PDF copies of all your forms and worksheets.
It's just the only place I could self-verify the facts. Seeing that fact wrong means I pretty much have to check everything I'm not sure about.
As for port 80 vs SSL traffic, why expose the management ports to the internet at all? The device only has one interface, stick it on your DMZ and firewall off everything but smtp.
Be sure to note that SSL is turned on by default, but the device allows configuration to force SSL to be used. Also, you get the option of generating your own cert, instead of using the Barracuda Networks one that ships with the unit or a self-signed one.
I've been using this product for a few months now and I'm very impressed with it.
Slashdot Mirror
The entire 127/8 is reserved for loopback purposes
:-)
Actually, 128 is not reserved for that purpose. Consider this:
Nah, he was using 127/8 as a netblock representation. saying 127/8 is equivalent to saying 127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0, just as saying 192.168/16 is shorthand for 192.168.0.0/255.255.0.0
I didn't realize that some of the unices out there didn't respond to the other loopback IPs, though.
Slashdot. Hopefully everyone gets to learn something (relatively useless) today
Why does everyone always fall back to 127.0.0.1 when trying to mess with people? That whole 127 class is reserved for loopback.
Interestingly, on a windows XP machine the following happens:
Pinging 127.54.34.67 with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time=1ms TTL=128
While on my Mepis box I get the following:
PING 127.43.54.2 (127.43.54.2): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 127.43.54.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=0.0 ms
So when do you run? :-)
(Although I'm not sure I agree with you on the medicare / social security thing, I'll back you up on the rest of them.)
You can do anything you want to a copy of a movie you own, as long as you don't redistribute it.
or decrypt it illegally to... oh.. you know.. play it under linux. The DMCA took that one away from you.
I for one can't wait for this crap to get settled out so we can just enjoy having huge discs
I get spam all the time about increasing the size of my discs.
Oh... wait.
Get yourself a modded xbox or a media-center PC and all of a sudden that external hard drive becomes available through your regular TV interface.
I started late on Lost. Watched episodes 8 and 12, decided to go back and see the first ones. Bittorrent to the rescue.
Now that I'm caught up, I watched last night's episode on my TV from my local cable broadcast. Quality absolutely sucked, even though I was still using the same TV to watch it. I'll just watch it from the torrents from now on.
I'd be happy to pay a monthly subscription of around ten dollars, so I could get access to tv shows without being branded a criminal
And this is where AOL / Time Warner really missed the boat.
Can you imagine how many new AOL Broadband subscribers there would be if your $20 / month fee included the ability to watch all of the previous seasons Sopranos? or Carnivale?
Not that it will help. Remember, we need to give equal time to people who think this is caused by thetans.
Windows is nice enough for most people to use. It's only a relatively small group of zealots who think otherwise.
Yes, but that relatively small group is growing with each and every major exploit that comes out, and every time Joe Sixpack has to take his computer into the shop (again) for another $95 session removing spyware and viruses from his machine.
It would be great if Linux was to the point where it was an option for this, but it's not. Apple takes the best parts of unix and combines them with a simple, intuitive interface and decent support. And now they do it for $500. Personally, I'm impressed by that.
The choice of an IT department is all about TCO and productivity. Will dumping Microsoft Office and moving to OO save money? You'll need to retrain, and productivity will be lower until everyone is comfortable with the new environment. But, you won't have software licensing costs. Future IT budget can go to hardware, jobs, pretzels, etc. in the next few years instead of going to Microsoft.
Software licensing costs for MS Office are surprisingly low once you've got about 200 seats to deal with. Add in to that the fact that they include Exchange CALs and you _really_ don't end up saving much money unless you can also ditch your Exchange server. It's _really_ hard to convince upper management to do that, I've tried.
I've also tried Evolution as a front-end for exchange, it's a better solution than was out there before (read: none) but it's still not up to the quality of Outlook for things such as public folders and calendar free/busy schedules. What's funny is that Microsoft's own Entourage for the Mac is similarly bad for those features.
Evolution does a much better job of eliminating email viruses, though.
And if that's not enough... The Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer (5 buttons, if you include the scroll wheel) works quite nicely, even allowing you to assign keystrokes to buttons. I've set my scroll wheel button up to activate Expose.
And if you haven't used Expose yet... man, that's cool stuff. Good-bye Alt-tab.
A hatch? on the side or something? oogly. These things are very sleek... no doors, no screws, just a slot.
And a place to set a coffee cup. Right there on the apple logo.
(BTW - I took Slashdotter advice from yesterday's article about the Mini and hardware upgrades and went with 512MB. I couldn't justify the $210 for 1GB when 512 was only $80). I am not looking forward to using two thin putty knives to open my brand new machine though. Why couldn't they have just made it user serviceable for RAM?
;)
:-)
If you spent $80 on a DIY RAM kit, why didn't you just buy the machine with 512MB of RAM from the factory? It only costs $75 extra...
I didn't get the Mini because it was small, quiet, or good looking. I got it because OS X is not Windows, is built on BSD, is now affordable, and isn't as susceptible to all the bullshit that my Windows machines are. If anything the Mini might open the door to more users for Apple which may or may not be a good thing
I've spent the last 4 or 5 months making a transition from a Windows desktop to Linux. I'm still not done with it, as there are still some things that are either much more complex or impossible to do under Linux that come quite easily in Windows. I got my Mac Mini a week ago and I'm already feature-compatible with my Linux Desktop... Now I just need to tackle the rest of the windows tasks
Here's a link to Avocent's KVM-over-IP solution. I haven't used it, but it might be just what the poster is asking for...
Avocent's SwitchView IP
Of course, once you realize that, the opportunity to rant via creative misspellings about how nobody cares about Microsoft on OSX is lost, so perhaps you should just ignore this post and carry on as you were.
Whenever I see "Micro$oft" I always think of this
$75 isn't bad for a 512MB stick (I just bought a kit of two of them for $154)
Now $475 for 1GB? That's a bit steep.
Well, you could go with the $599 version and add... oh, say... 512MB memory, superdrive, bluetooth/802.11g
:-)
Comes out to $902. or thereabout
$15 for 2nd shipping means it should be here on or around the 25th....
My guess is that they do because the memory is claimed to be upgradable only at an authorized service center, but in the "box open" shots on the apple site, it's pretty clearly sitting in a DIMM slot alongside the drive bay.
I've just ordered one. Total came to $1100 after I tricked it out with:
1.42 GHz G4
512MB RAM
Superdrive
Wireless Airport Extreme / Bluetooth adapter
3 Year Warranty
This is actually a great idea...
Drop a few bucks on an LCD panel display (they run really cool, so wrapping them in plastic shouldn't be an issue if you don't run them that way 24 / 7) and then get your keyboard covered with the plastic skin linked at the top of the comments. Use something like an Apex cat5 KVM converter to allow you to control a box back in the safety of your office.
Something like this for example would allow you to skip the whole "buy a second PC" and just control your existing PC from the shop
The main difference is the Firefox vulnerabilities were released they had already been fixed. The IE vulnerabilities still f*ck up your computer.
Actually, one of the three hasn't yet been fixed, and my not be. Here's the bug. and here is the Secunia advisory.
But this is all beside the point, as you've once again tried to make this thread about a Mozilla vs Microsoft Browser Flame War. The _point_ is that these exploits are NOT new. If you pay attention to Slashdot (or any one of another of security-related websites) and happen to run IE, you've already been notified about this problem, and if you're smart, you've already done something about this.
Again. This entire article was posted only because no one bothered to actually read the article and realize that it was a minor update to a known vulnerability. If the article was worded that way, I wouldn't be here ranting about it, but it's made out to be a new vulnerability.
No, What I'm telling you is that this article was written and posted to provide fodder for a flame war.
You are still vulnerable because Microsoft has determined that this vulnerability is:
a) unpatchable without ruining the functionality of the product
and / or
b) not a large enough threat to worry about.
Now I'm _not_ going argue whether either of these points is correct or not. But to present these as "New exploits" is typical Slashdot anti-journalism. they did the same thing when they announced the "New" vulnerabilities for Firefox a few days ago. Those were not new either, but neither the submitters or editors bothered to read the articles that were submitted.
This is NOT a new vulnerability. This is an upgraded severity on a vulnerability that was reported almost 3 months ago:
...
From the article:
Secunia Advisory: SA12889 Print Advisory
Release Date: 2004-10-20
Last Update: 2005-01-07
Changelog:
2004-10-21: Updated advisory.
2004-10-28: Added another workaround in "Solution" section and linked to Microsoft Knowledge Base article.
2004-11-02: Updated with additional information in "Description" and "Solution" section.
2004-11-29: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul.
2004-12-23: Added link to US-CERT vulnerability note.
2004-12-25: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul and Michael Evanchik.
2005-01-07: Increased rating. Added link to test. Updated "Description" and "Solution" sections.
So they upped the severity rating and added another workaround. This isn't really news. You've been vulnerable to this for almost 3 months now.
NEWS ALERT folks: Not a new vulnerability:
...
From the article:
Secunia Advisory: SA12889 Print Advisory
Release Date: 2004-10-20
Last Update: 2005-01-07
Changelog:
2004-10-21: Updated advisory.
2004-10-28: Added another workaround in "Solution" section and linked to Microsoft Knowledge Base article.
2004-11-02: Updated with additional information in "Description" and "Solution" section.
2004-11-29: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul.
2004-12-23: Added link to US-CERT vulnerability note.
2004-12-25: Updated "Description" section with additional information from Paul and Michael Evanchik.
2005-01-07: Increased rating. Added link to test. Updated "Description" and "Solution" sections.
So they upped the severity rating and added another workaround. This isn't really news. you've been vulnerable to this for almost 3 months now.
Re:TurboTax for the web sucks (Score:1)
by ICA (237194) Alter Relationship on Saturday January 08, @09:45PM (#11301295)
Okay, I tried...and I was successful. Go to turbotaxonline.com right now, click on the link at the bottom that says view last years return (in fact you can see the past several years) and login.
And if I remember correctly, paying for the Turbo Tax web service automatically enrolls you in myturbotax.com for free, which keeps PDF copies of all your forms and worksheets.
It's just the only place I could self-verify the facts. Seeing that fact wrong means I pretty much have to check everything I'm not sure about.
As for port 80 vs SSL traffic, why expose the management ports to the internet at all? The device only has one interface, stick it on your DMZ and firewall off everything but smtp.
Be sure to note that SSL is turned on by default, but the device allows configuration to force SSL to be used. Also, you get the option of generating your own cert, instead of using the Barracuda Networks one that ships with the unit or a self-signed one.
I've been using this product for a few months now and I'm very impressed with it.