Except that the Javascript "AI" is really good:)... If it can win in one move, it does it. If you can win in one move it blocks it. Otherwise it calls AI() to do a predefined sequence. Perhaps it would give the wrong message if it didn't let you win.
When you've got "root", which gives you "ring-0" access to everything on the box, you have access to the encryption software, and hence can pull the key used to decrypt the data(assuming the decryption is done by the host computer), or more likely, just ask the encryption software to fetch the file on your behalf. Most virus scanners would indeed try to access the data as soon as it is mounted and ready to read decrypted data, and so could any other software the university might want to install on the computer.
Perhaps they will get pressure from RIAA etc.. to put DRM software etc... on your computers as well(I am assuming that we are talking about student-owned computers). The college could well try to justify it as being moral, but I'm sure many students would consider it a violation of trust.
I would suggest one of the following... 1) University provided computers can connect to the network only. It is difficult to enforce, but if someone breaks the rules and infects the network that is their fault. This is common university policy although staff at many turn a blind eye to violations. 2) Firewall and block worm ports as the need is required. This works well in some circumstances, depending on the hardware available. If peer-to-peer operation is not required, only allow packets if either on end or the other is a server on the network. Perhaps limit to needed ports(80, etc...) and alert the admins if someone tries to make many repeated connections to other ports. 3) Require the use of another operating system such as Linux. There are less viruses targeting it because, unlike most Windows users, people use Linux as non-root accounts(in general). Forcing Linux on the masses might, however, not help such user derived problems.
I don't know if you are serious or this is a troll, but I believe the whole point of "terminator" genes is that they *don't* get passed on. I somehow doubt that they would spread(although, depending on how it is done, it could produce pollen that would render a flower inviable).
15-20 minutes is probably not enough time for the robot to last in the tasks advocated in the article for it to complete, so why not use some sort of alternate energy source - perhaps electromagnetic induction from an "energy transmitter"? It only needs a relatively small energy intake, and it will only move relatively small distances from where it is deployed.
I assume that they use the sun as the frame of reference. Aside from a (relatively) slow expansion of the universe, most stars do not move fast relative to the sun, but this one does.
Not when you look at the angular velocity, which is what matters to astronomers, I suppose. It is, by my calculations, 1.8921x10^18 m away, and moves with a linear velocity of 10582 ms^-1. That would mean it has 5.7357x10^-15 rads^-1 angular velocity, which would not be visible as movement to the naked eye(especially since the earth rotates with an angular velocity of about 7.2722x10^-5 rads^-1.
ssh control1.jetpack.org -lgod
Password: god
[god@control1 god]$ su
Password: god
[root@control1 god]# echo "SELECT USER BY NAME='Bill Gates'; SET SAFETY-CONTROL=OFF; BEGIN FLIGHT-PATH" >>/dev/jetpack-ctrl-broadcast24
[root@control1 god]# cat/dev/urandom >>/dev/jetpack-ctrl-broadcast24
[root@control1 god]# logout
As well as converting to digital, they are also putting all the data on smaller cassetes. As
http://www.strl.nhk.or.jp/open99/co-4/shosai-e.htm l
explains, the data/cassete volume ratio increases by 20 times(the small cassetes hold the same amount of data as D-3 cassetes but have a much smaller volume)
The problem with that is, aside from making the cost even higher, is that the two satellites must be in exactly the same frame of reference. If the drift even 1nms^-1 rel each other, the experiment won't work, and getting them so still is almost impossible.
Although the article acknowledges that noise could upset the measurements, it doesn't acknowledge the full extent of this problem
The locking may appear accurate in the tests, but there is no way to tell whether noise has caused the mirrors to move forward 1/2 lambda or there is a true grav. wave. This means that the results from the observations mean nothing.
Air movement, insects, electromagnetic interference in the locking devices are the most likely cause of error, and in many cases can not be detected.
Linux is not really suitable for small embedded applications, since it has a large(in terms of the memory these appliances have, not in terms of other oses), so I don't think it overlaps too much with other existing operating systems. Whether or not it is needed at all, however, is another matter.
The QNX site does not seem to document what platforms their OS runs on in any obvious place. However, I suspect many simple embedded systems lack all the hardware to keep a RTOS like that running, and it would be pointless to use more expensive components(like processors which support protected mode, for example) just to use a pre-made operating system. Will developers widely accept a "microkernel" platform, when they could get it to work with a small amount of code and probably less hastle anyway(or go the next step up and use a more complete platform)?
This patent covers:
1) Any disturbance in a gaseous medium which propagates as a longitudinal wave through the medium.
2) Any device, including but not limited to those constructed from proteins, paper, metal which produces such disturbances as patented under section 1.
3) Any form of serialised temporal entropy, whether conveying meaning, or random data which is transmitted via a disturbance as patented under section 1, including but not limited to entropy conveying human-human, human-computer or computer-human communications.
This system will only work if you can be assured
the ircd and the system on which it runs is secure. It is all very well knowing no one between the server can read your messages(but even that isn't assured) but there is a good chance that the ircd or the machine on which it runs can be breached, and then all the security is no use whatsoever.
The system also is at risk from "man in the middle" attacks, where an adversary substitutes the server's public key when it is sent out for their own key public key, and decrypts the messages, reads and/or modifies them, then encrypts them with the server key and sends them on.
Should the hard part be server or client-side?
on
XFree & Rendering
·
· Score: 3
The extension raises an interesting issue
This extension is starting to shift some of the
load onto the client side:
Rendering geometric figures is accomplished by client-side tesselation into either triangles or trapezoids. Text is drawn by loading glyphs into the server and rendering sets of them.
In most cases, the client IS the same machine as the server, but in some cases, for example if I run an X-program on my shell account and the X-server locally, it means that the shell account starts to do the hard part of the rendering.
The shell acount might run X programs for 50 different users, but each X-server probably serves no more than a few screens, so I think it should rightfully be server-side.
Copied from http://www.tivo.com/what/how.html {
Purchase a personal video recorder and sign up to receive the TiVo Service.
}
So the idea is that they provide an on-going service to those who buy there machine, and I guess some companies might be worried that the modified hardware will do something they don't want with the hardware(Like Tivo could be if someone hacked their proprietary format)
However, when you introduce something like this, especially with features like the nestable tags in a text based protocol, a sophisticated vector animation could potentially take 10 minutes and heaps of memory to render on some machines. At the moment, some large complicated HTML documents take ~30s to render under Mozilla on my dual 533 system.
What we need is compiled XML. It should, of course be easy to compile & decompile, and it could double as compression.
if(YouWantToMakeM$Lose$) {
sendto_smtpservers_through_3_proxies_and_
hotmail_and_two_cascading_wingates
(server,
"From: Bill Gates \n"
"Subject: Buy Win2K today!\n"
"a whole lot of other forged headers and requests to forward this message all over the place to make it almost impossible to tell where it came from\n\n"
""
);
}
I don't see how this law could be enforced. It is my philosophy that it is better to make something that rightfully should be illegal illegal, even if it is unenforcible, and I do hate spam, but...
Some./ers have already mentioned that this law would not be enforcible by the end user because of the legal costs associated with taking such a case to court over $10, but an even greater hurdle for the law is identifying the person who sent the message. It only takes an IQ even lower than that of a script kiddie to forge the headers on an SMTP message, and it isn't too hard to hide the real host the message came from. Do it from hotmail through a few proxies and an anonymising service and through an open wingate(just type stats k on dalnet server for a list of them), and it will be as close to impossible to trace as you get. It would definitely cost >$10 to trace at least. Add to that the fact you could send spam and forge your headers to make it look like it came from someone else and even go so far as suing _them_ for it, and I think this law will bring more troubles than it solves.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the Javascript "AI" is really good :)...
If it can win in one move, it does it. If you can win in one move it blocks it. Otherwise it calls AI() to do a predefined sequence. Perhaps it would give the wrong message if it didn't let you win.
function AI()
{
vari()
if(document.tic.sqr5.value == " " && turn == 1)
{
document.tic.sqr5.value = " O "
turn = 0
sqr5T = 1
}
else if(document.tic.sqr1.value == " " && turn == 1)
{
document.tic.sqr1.value = " O "
turn = 0
sqr1T = 1
When you've got "root", which gives you "ring-0" access to everything on the box, you have access to the encryption software, and hence can pull the key used to decrypt the data(assuming the decryption is done by the host computer), or more likely, just ask the encryption software to fetch the file on your behalf. Most virus scanners would indeed try to access the data as soon as it is mounted and ready to read decrypted data, and so could any other software the university might want to install on the computer.
Perhaps they will get pressure from RIAA etc.. to put DRM software etc... on your computers as well(I am assuming that we are talking about student-owned computers). The college could well try to justify it as being moral, but I'm sure many students would consider it a violation of trust.
I would suggest one of the following...
1) University provided computers can connect to the network only. It is difficult to enforce, but if someone breaks the rules and infects the network that is their fault. This is common university policy although staff at many turn a blind eye to violations.
2) Firewall and block worm ports as the need is required. This works well in some circumstances, depending on the hardware available. If peer-to-peer operation is not required, only allow packets if either on end or the other is a server on the network. Perhaps limit to needed ports(80, etc...) and alert the admins if someone tries to make many repeated connections to other ports.
3) Require the use of another operating system such as Linux. There are less viruses targeting it because, unlike most Windows users, people use Linux as non-root accounts(in general). Forcing Linux on the masses might, however, not help such user derived problems.
I don't know if you are serious or this is a troll, but I believe the whole point of "terminator" genes is that they *don't* get passed on. I somehow doubt that they would spread(although, depending on how it is done, it could produce pollen that would render a flower inviable).
15-20 minutes is probably not enough time for the robot to last in the tasks advocated in the article for it to complete, so why not use some sort of alternate energy source - perhaps electromagnetic induction from an "energy transmitter"? It only needs a relatively small energy intake, and it will only move relatively small distances from where it is deployed.
I assume that they use the sun as the frame of reference. Aside from a (relatively) slow expansion of the universe, most stars do not move fast relative to the sun, but this one does.
Not when you look at the angular velocity, which is what matters to astronomers, I suppose. It is, by my calculations, 1.8921x10^18 m away, and moves with a linear velocity of 10582 ms^-1. That would mean it has 5.7357x10^-15 rads^-1 angular velocity, which would not be visible as movement to the naked eye(especially since the earth rotates with an angular velocity of about 7.2722x10^-5 rads^-1.
ssh control1.jetpack.org -lgod /dev/urandom >>/dev/jetpack-ctrl-broadcast24
Password: god
[god@control1 god]$ su
Password: god
[root@control1 god]# echo "SELECT USER BY NAME='Bill Gates'; SET SAFETY-CONTROL=OFF; BEGIN FLIGHT-PATH" >>/dev/jetpack-ctrl-broadcast24
[root@control1 god]# cat
[root@control1 god]# logout
As well as converting to digital, they are also putting all the data on smaller cassetes. As http://www.strl.nhk.or.jp/open99/co-4/shosai-e.htm l
explains, the data/cassete volume ratio increases by 20 times(the small cassetes hold the same amount of data as D-3 cassetes but have a much smaller volume)
The official site with more information is available at:
NHK Digital
or NHK Digital(English translation)
The problem with that is, aside from making the cost even higher, is that the two satellites must be in exactly the same frame of reference. If the drift even 1nms^-1 rel each other, the experiment won't work, and getting them so still is almost impossible.
Although the article acknowledges that noise could upset the measurements, it doesn't acknowledge the full extent of this problem
The locking may appear accurate in the tests, but there is no way to tell whether noise has caused the mirrors to move forward 1/2 lambda or there is a true grav. wave. This means that the results from the observations mean nothing.
Air movement, insects, electromagnetic interference in the locking devices are the most likely cause of error, and in many cases can not be detected.
Linux is not really suitable for small embedded applications, since it has a large(in terms of the memory these appliances have, not in terms of other oses), so I don't think it overlaps too much with other existing operating systems.
Whether or not it is needed at all, however, is another matter.
The QNX site does not seem to document what platforms their OS runs on in any obvious place. However, I suspect many simple embedded systems lack all the hardware to keep a RTOS like that running, and it would be pointless to use more expensive components(like processors which support protected mode, for example) just to use a pre-made operating system. Will developers widely accept a "microkernel" platform, when they could get it to work with a small amount of code and probably less hastle anyway(or go the next step up and use a more complete platform)?
This patent covers:
1) Any disturbance in a gaseous medium which propagates as a longitudinal wave through the medium.
2) Any device, including but not limited to those constructed from proteins, paper, metal which produces such disturbances as patented under section 1.
3) Any form of serialised temporal entropy, whether conveying meaning, or random data which is transmitted via a disturbance as patented under section 1, including but not limited to entropy conveying human-human, human-computer or computer-human communications.
This system will only work if you can be assured the ircd and the system on which it runs is secure. It is all very well knowing no one between the server can read your messages(but even that isn't assured) but there is a good chance that the ircd or the machine on which it runs can be breached, and then all the security is no use whatsoever.
The system also is at risk from "man in the middle" attacks, where an adversary substitutes the server's public key when it is sent out for their own key public key, and decrypts the messages, reads and/or modifies them, then encrypts them with the server key and sends them on.
The extension raises an interesting issue
This extension is starting to shift some of the load onto the client side:
Rendering geometric figures is accomplished by client-side tesselation into either triangles or trapezoids. Text is drawn by loading glyphs into the server and rendering sets of them.
In most cases, the client IS the same machine as the server, but in some cases, for example if I run an X-program on my shell account and the X-server locally, it means that the shell account starts to do the hard part of the rendering.
The shell acount might run X programs for 50 different users, but each X-server probably serves no more than a few screens, so I think it should rightfully be server-side.
Copied from http://www.tivo.com/what/how.html { Purchase a personal video recorder and sign up to receive the TiVo Service. } So the idea is that they provide an on-going service to those who buy there machine, and I guess some companies might be worried that the modified hardware will do something they don't want with the hardware(Like Tivo could be if someone hacked their proprietary format)
However, when you introduce something like this, especially with features like the nestable tags in a text based protocol, a sophisticated vector animation could potentially take 10 minutes and heaps of memory to render on some machines. At the moment, some large complicated HTML documents take ~30s to render under Mozilla on my dual 533 system. What we need is compiled XML. It should, of course be easy to compile & decompile, and it could double as compression.
if(YouWantToMakeM$Lose$) { sendto_smtpservers_through_3_proxies_and_ hotmail_and_two_cascading_wingates (server, "From: Bill Gates \n" "Subject: Buy Win2K today!\n" "a whole lot of other forged headers and requests to forward this message all over the place to make it almost impossible to tell where it came from\n\n" "" ); } I don't see how this law could be enforced. It is my philosophy that it is better to make something that rightfully should be illegal illegal, even if it is unenforcible, and I do hate spam, but... Some ./ers have already mentioned that this law would not be enforcible by the end user because of the legal costs associated with taking such a case to court over $10, but an even greater hurdle for the law is identifying the person who sent the message. It only takes an IQ even lower than that of a script kiddie to forge the headers on an SMTP message, and it isn't too hard to hide the real host the message came from. Do it from hotmail through a few proxies and an anonymising service and through an open wingate(just type stats k on dalnet server for a list of them), and it will be as close to impossible to trace as you get. It would definitely cost >$10 to trace at least. Add to that the fact you could send spam and forge your headers to make it look like it came from someone else and even go so far as suing _them_ for it, and I think this law will bring more troubles than it solves.