Just because you never heard about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
The local news from Birmingham, AL, USA have been all over an story about a CCTV monitor who was using his traffic cameras at the University of Alabama (in Tuscaloosa, AL) to keep tabs on the coeds instead of the mopeds.
Even without news and anecdotal evidence of surveillance camera abuse, the watched can't be sure the watchers are following the rules unless the feeds are publicly available. It seems like this would be a fine use of unused channels on local cable systems.
Regardless, it's truly not the economic time to test your job security by scoping the market while on the clock.
The point you're missing is that none of the links give an actual solution to the problem. The three best solutions so far (from my research) are:
try a different KVM
reset the X mouse driver with some script or program that outputs the appropriate reset code to the mouse device
reset the X mouse driver by switching to a virtual console and back
And while the question is phrased as if it should be posted to comp.os.linux.* or somesuch, the underlying issue is valid. The Windows mouse driver is able to compensate for shortcomings in KVMs, while the various open source drivers are not, despite theories that this could be done in the X mouse drivers. There is no solution and no good workaround, so hopefully publicity will inspire someone to find the solution.
The same problems are still there, regardless of material. Changing the composition doesn't change the fact that there is only one standard in only one laboratory, that stray particles and cleaning will affect its mass upon measurement, and that the standard may be damaged in some way.
The other solutions presented as candidates to replace the standard rely on invariant physical constants, i.e. Avogadro's number. Distance and time standards are already defined in this way, from the speed of light and the frequency of a two-state cesium transition in the microwave region.
This shifts the accuracy of the standard from it's care and maintenance to the measurement of constants, with the added benefit of any appropriately equipped laboratory being able to measure the standard.
I think there should be some activist group out there that runs around with Max Headroom-style cameras (recording timestamp, position, heading) recording (and even broadcasting live) the watchers (police, security guards, owners and execs of the companies who monitor people). I doubt these people would like a bunch of strangers watching their movements.
I would go one further and say that all surveillance footage of a public place to be made available to any member of the public. Especially with law enforcemnt, I'd like to see the footage played live on a public access channel so everyone can see how much time the local PD spends following attractive women with their "must have for public safety" cameras.
The people give the power to govern to the government, we should at least get to watch what they really watch.
I don't see the difference between a cop on every streetcorner and a camera on every streetcorner (except that the camera can't shoot anyone...not yet anyway).
A cop on a streetcorner can't record and store indefinitely everything he sees.
As long as the cameras aren't positioned in a way that they can spy on people in their homes or other private places, it's no big deal. When they put a camera on the lightpole outside my bedroom window, I'll complain. But until then I'd say they do more good than harm.
I do have a camera on a lightpole outside my windows. I can't tell if it can see inside and I'm not real happy about it.
There is no exception for disposable technology. It is neither good or bad, simply an advance. It's effects on the environment are a consequence of it's (mis)use.
You make this point yourself when you say, "Our rampant consumerism may cause our downfall..." It's consumerism at fault, not technology.
Re:One thing I've NEVER seen here....
on
Fair IP Laws?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't understand why some software is covered by patents (i.e. Unisys) while some is copyrighted (i.e. GNU). I'd like to see that resolved, one way or the other.
I think software patents are bad simply because programs are expressions of ideas in a form that should be copyrighted. The ideas expressed are not dissimilar from those in books or recipes and other "idea" things that are usually copyrighted. Things that are patented are typically some material good or manufacturing process, or a "physical" thing, more or less.
In other words, programs are more suitable for copyright than patenting. It seems that patents are counter to my notions of programming. It seems entirely unreasonable to me that I can't implement an algorithm because it is patented. It seems much more reasonable to say I can't plagiarize, but if I create my own implementation I can copyright it and so can the first guy and so can anyone else who creates an implementation.
How do you broach the subject of introducing new policies with supervisors?
You don't need new policies. Your job is to provide a safe, secure, and stable computing environment. If something your users are doing is jeopardizing those three goals, then tough for them because it's your job to stop them.
I have been in this position before. At my current position, I inherited the administration of about a dozen different unix boxes. There was no security in place whatsover. Several boxes had been cracked. Users had the root passwords. When I took over, I didn't have any policies; I just used common sense as my policy.
If I were you, I would start securing things as you see fit, policy or no. If the users whine because their p2p stops working, imply that they were inappropriately using the network. That might get their attention. Just remember that security is part of your job, and you can't have your users running amok with your network.
I agree that dropping MS would destroy many possibilities for virus exploitation. That much is obvious. What isn't as obvious is whether the MS bugset is necessarily smaller than the unix-like bugsets. That doesn't matter as much since I think the unix-like OSen have better security models that could allow some bugs to be exploited without serious trouble for the infected system or other computers on the net.
So it only takes ONE widely-deployed OS with a vulnerability to make trouble for the rest of the Net. Thus more variety means more pools of machines able to be converted into troublemakers.
Not sure I follow here. I think the convolution of virus and DOS attacks is somewhat misleading. Virus infections are less widespread if there are fewer machines to infect. If the virus is used to launch a DDOS without regard to target OS, that's a different story, but it's scale is still limited by the number of infectable systems. There may be more pools of computers to use, but the pools would be smaller that the current MS pool.
I hate all things MS with a passion, but switching from MS software wholesale to another system will not fix the problem.
Computer virii are a lot like real life virii, especially in that they both find a hole in the system and exploit it. They also both attack a specific hole in the system, so that different systems cannot usually be damaged by the same virus.
Switching to another system (linux, for instance) will just changed the set of bugs that virus writers attempt to exploit. What is needed is variety. If there were more variety in the software and OSen people used, we could avoid such widescale abuses.
Granted, Microsoft could try to eliminate more bugs before shipping software. Users could also try to protect themselves. Neither is likely to happen.
There may be good reasons to scrap MS software wholesale, but this just isn't it.
A quick read of the article gives the obvious answer: the plants are harvested and either the contaminants are extracted or the plants are disposed of as hazardous waste.
The benefits of this procedure over excavation and contaminant extraction should be equally obvious.
I'd avoid Linux. I may well love the OS, and have been using it since the Linus boot/root disk days, but I'd advise something else for learning how to admin the box. Linux makes life too easy, with the consequence that you get used to the niceties and are then stuck when confronted with an OS that doesn't have them (and most of the paid Unix admin jobs will have such an OS).
I couldn't disagree more. Call it what you will, but Linux is just another unix variant. The principles are exactly the same under Linux as they are under Irix or DEC OSF3.2 or AIX. The paths, command options, file system structure, etc. may be wildly different, but all unix variants are unix.
Writing bash scripts, for example, gives you some syntactic sugar, but little in the way of real added value over and above plain Bourne shell. But it means your scripts won't be portable, and when confronted with an OS without bash, you're stuck.
This is easy to avoid, since you can write Bourne shell scripts under Linux as well as you can anywhere else. You just have to watch what you write and avoid the 'syntactic sugar'.
The important thing is that you expose yourself to as many variants as possible, not to which variants you expose yourself. Note the similarities to make your life easier, but keep in mind all the annoying differences to keep your job.
Re:Strict Guidelines only way to cope with load
on
Dorm Storm?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Strict guidlines are good but these "network administrators" had their heads in the sand or perhaps somewhere even darker.
Of course, whoever run this network was a obviously a bunch of jack-booted microsoft thugs whose hobbies include generating mountains of logfiles.
What I want to know is which unix was running the workstation that ran Perl to analyze all that crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because you never heard about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
The local news from Birmingham, AL, USA have been all over an story about a CCTV monitor who was using his traffic cameras at the University of Alabama (in Tuscaloosa, AL) to keep tabs on the coeds instead of the mopeds.
Even without news and anecdotal evidence of surveillance camera abuse, the watched can't be sure the watchers are following the rules unless the feeds are publicly available. It seems like this would be a fine use of unused channels on local cable systems.
Regardless, it's truly not the economic time to test your job security by scoping the market while on the clock.
The point you're missing is that none of the links give an actual solution to the problem. The three best solutions so far (from my research) are:
And while the question is phrased as if it should be posted to comp.os.linux.* or somesuch, the underlying issue is valid. The Windows mouse driver is able to compensate for shortcomings in KVMs, while the various open source drivers are not, despite theories that this could be done in the X mouse drivers. There is no solution and no good workaround, so hopefully publicity will inspire someone to find the solution.
The same problems are still there, regardless of material. Changing the composition doesn't change the fact that there is only one standard in only one laboratory, that stray particles and cleaning will affect its mass upon measurement, and that the standard may be damaged in some way.
The other solutions presented as candidates to replace the standard rely on invariant physical constants, i.e. Avogadro's number. Distance and time standards are already defined in this way, from the speed of light and the frequency of a two-state cesium transition in the microwave region.
This shifts the accuracy of the standard from it's care and maintenance to the measurement of constants, with the added benefit of any appropriately equipped laboratory being able to measure the standard.
I think there should be some activist group out there that runs around with Max Headroom-style cameras (recording timestamp, position, heading) recording (and even broadcasting live) the watchers (police, security guards, owners and execs of the companies who monitor people). I doubt these people would like a bunch of strangers watching their movements.
I would go one further and say that all surveillance footage of a public place to be made available to any member of the public. Especially with law enforcemnt, I'd like to see the footage played live on a public access channel so everyone can see how much time the local PD spends following attractive women with their "must have for public safety" cameras.
The people give the power to govern to the government, we should at least get to watch what they really watch.
I don't see the difference between a cop on every streetcorner and a camera on every streetcorner (except that the camera can't shoot anyone...not yet anyway).
A cop on a streetcorner can't record and store indefinitely everything he sees.
As long as the cameras aren't positioned in a way that they can spy on people in their homes or other private places, it's no big deal. When they put a camera on the lightpole outside my bedroom window, I'll complain. But until then I'd say they do more good than harm.
I do have a camera on a lightpole outside my windows. I can't tell if it can see inside and I'm not real happy about it.
There is no exception for disposable technology. It is neither good or bad, simply an advance. It's effects on the environment are a consequence of it's (mis)use.
You make this point yourself when you say, "Our rampant consumerism may cause our downfall..." It's consumerism at fault, not technology.
I don't understand why some software is covered by patents (i.e. Unisys) while some is copyrighted (i.e. GNU). I'd like to see that resolved, one way or the other.
I think software patents are bad simply because programs are expressions of ideas in a form that should be copyrighted. The ideas expressed are not dissimilar from those in books or recipes and other "idea" things that are usually copyrighted. Things that are patented are typically some material good or manufacturing process, or a "physical" thing, more or less.
In other words, programs are more suitable for copyright than patenting. It seems that patents are counter to my notions of programming. It seems entirely unreasonable to me that I can't implement an algorithm because it is patented. It seems much more reasonable to say I can't plagiarize, but if I create my own implementation I can copyright it and so can the first guy and so can anyone else who creates an implementation.
How do you broach the subject of introducing new policies with supervisors?
You don't need new policies. Your job is to provide a safe, secure, and stable computing environment. If something your users are doing is jeopardizing those three goals, then tough for them because it's your job to stop them.
I have been in this position before. At my current position, I inherited the administration of about a dozen different unix boxes. There was no security in place whatsover. Several boxes had been cracked. Users had the root passwords. When I took over, I didn't have any policies; I just used common sense as my policy.
If I were you, I would start securing things as you see fit, policy or no. If the users whine because their p2p stops working, imply that they were inappropriately using the network. That might get their attention. Just remember that security is part of your job, and you can't have your users running amok with your network.
I agree that dropping MS would destroy many possibilities for virus exploitation. That much is obvious. What isn't as obvious is whether the MS bugset is necessarily smaller than the unix-like bugsets. That doesn't matter as much since I think the unix-like OSen have better security models that could allow some bugs to be exploited without serious trouble for the infected system or other computers on the net.
So it only takes ONE widely-deployed OS with a vulnerability to make trouble for the rest of the Net. Thus more variety means more pools of machines able to be converted into troublemakers.
Not sure I follow here. I think the convolution of virus and DOS attacks is somewhat misleading. Virus infections are less widespread if there are fewer machines to infect. If the virus is used to launch a DDOS without regard to target OS, that's a different story, but it's scale is still limited by the number of infectable systems. There may be more pools of computers to use, but the pools would be smaller that the current MS pool.
I hate all things MS with a passion, but switching from MS software wholesale to another system will not fix the problem.
Computer virii are a lot like real life virii, especially in that they both find a hole in the system and exploit it. They also both attack a specific hole in the system, so that different systems cannot usually be damaged by the same virus.
Switching to another system (linux, for instance) will just changed the set of bugs that virus writers attempt to exploit. What is needed is variety. If there were more variety in the software and OSen people used, we could avoid such widescale abuses.
Granted, Microsoft could try to eliminate more bugs before shipping software. Users could also try to protect themselves. Neither is likely to happen.
There may be good reasons to scrap MS software wholesale, but this just isn't it.
A quick read of the article gives the obvious answer: the plants are harvested and either the contaminants are extracted or the plants are disposed of as hazardous waste.
The benefits of this procedure over excavation and contaminant extraction should be equally obvious.
I'd avoid Linux. I may well love the OS, and have been using it since the Linus boot/root disk days, but I'd advise something else for learning how to admin the box. Linux makes life too easy, with the consequence that you get used to the niceties and are then stuck when confronted with an OS that doesn't have them (and most of the paid Unix admin jobs will have such an OS).
I couldn't disagree more. Call it what you will, but Linux is just another unix variant. The principles are exactly the same under Linux as they are under Irix or DEC OSF3.2 or AIX. The paths, command options, file system structure, etc. may be wildly different, but all unix variants are unix.
Writing bash scripts, for example, gives you some syntactic sugar, but little in the way of real added value over and above plain Bourne shell. But it means your scripts won't be portable, and when confronted with an OS without bash, you're stuck.
This is easy to avoid, since you can write Bourne shell scripts under Linux as well as you can anywhere else. You just have to watch what you write and avoid the 'syntactic sugar'.
The important thing is that you expose yourself to as many variants as possible, not to which variants you expose yourself. Note the similarities to make your life easier, but keep in mind all the annoying differences to keep your job.
Strict guidlines are good but these "network administrators" had their heads in the sand or perhaps somewhere even darker.
Of course, whoever run this network was a obviously a bunch of jack-booted microsoft thugs whose hobbies include generating mountains of logfiles.
What I want to know is which unix was running the workstation that ran Perl to analyze all that crap.
Curiously, G.I. Jane gives a treatment for back problems over at Maxim Online. Plus there's a reward at the end...