I think the logic he's using is that Outlook embeds IE's HTML-viewing component, and is therefore susceptible to the same attack... and you can't disable HTML viewing in Outlook.
As for whether those statements are accurate, I have no idea.
Yes, but those browsers go only by Content-type when receiving an HTTP transmission, and use extension otherwise (or/etc/magic, possibly).
The flaw here seems to be that you can trick IE into behaving as if it's looking at a local file when it is in fact looking at a file it just received via HTTP.
You send it something it initially thinks is "HTML", thereby bypassing its warnings about executable files, but later decides is executable...and therefore runs.
At least, that's what I gleaned from the article... it was a bit sparse.
How do you figure? Ripping a CD is, at most, five minutes worth of work (if you have to rename tracks or something)... sure, the kid can't go outside and run in circles all day, but this isn't exactly taxing, either.
So you're looking at about an hour and twenty minutes of actual work... it comes out closer to $30/hr.
According to the article, the information he posted is accurate. The order does apply "only to systems that provide access to the Indian Trust data". Article says so right here (emphasis mine):
A federal judge on Wednesday evening threatened yet again to hold Secretary of Interior Gale Norton in contempt as he ordered her department to "immediately" disconnect from the Internet every single computer, server and system
that has access to individual Indian trust data.
If the DOI decided to shut down their entire network instead of taking those machines offline, that was their stupid decision.
On the other hand, if security is as lax as it seems, we all have (illegitimate, potential) access to said data. Maybe we'd better disconnect...;)
Of course the judge should have this much power.. it's what we called a "check" in civics class. The executive branch is sucking, and nobody could make it stop sucking if the judicial branch had no power.
If you wish to start an intelligent thought, try figuring out how adding a circle together with a triangle could get you a square. That is the same as adding 1 and 2 and getting 3. You are using numbers to replace the shapes, but the Mathematics is still the same. But, that doesn't make any sense to you, does it? None of it is made up.
I confess, I do fail to see your point.
First of all, you can prove something beyond all doubt, that is what is meant by a "truth". I am speaking of the basis of all Mathematics, which is what all of Physics and all other sciences are creations of.
For the love of God, man, pay attention. I just described in two posts the circumstances in which you can and cannot prove something with absolute certainty. Believe me, I understand the concept of a mathematical proof. My point, pretty much in its entirety, is that you cannot apply the concept of mathematical proof to the physical universe outside of mathematics, because you don't know the entire problem space and never can without attaining an omniscience we generally attribute solely to deities. Within the realm of mathematics, that is obviously not the case.
We did not create all of Mathematics at once, like you are believing. Mathematics is based on a couple of basic "truths" and from those, Mathematics creates itself.
Didn't I state this explicitly? I'm pretty sure I did. Perhaps you'd like to go back and actually read my post? NB the fourth paragraph.
Oh, and just to let you know, without Mathematics, physical sciences would not and could never exist. Physical science is Mathematics in action. Mathematics is the basis of all science.
Why do you keep bringing this up? I never said otherwise. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. It's annoying; stop it.
You would do well to drop this idea you have that I don't "understand" mathematics. I've had a bit of math, including a few levels of college calculus. I've also had some instruction in formal proofs. Trust me, I get it. You can say otherwise til you're blue in the face, but until you actually address the content of my posts I can't see anyone taking you seriously, and I can't promise I'll bother to respond to your ravings again. You haven't written a single sentence that has any direct bearing on what I've said.
Not to mention the fact that most serious professional coders would rather just fix a problem and move on to working on new development than rewrite some crusty old crap that already hobbles along satisfactorily.
I can't tell you how often I want to just write the following comment and go on to the next project:
/* this has been reduced to a previously solved problem */
Want Apache httpd to do your web serving, Oracle for your database, and a unix ftpd, you'd be able to do it from one box, out of the box. That alone is worth quite a bit of money to me.
First, you really shouldn't make assumptions like the one you made about my level of education in mathematics. Feet don't taste good.
Second, calm down. I never said mathematics wasn't useful, I never said science could get along just fine without it... in fact, I never said any of the things you've ascribed to me, except that mathematics is invented.
All I'm saying is that mathematics is a framework that we have imposed on the universe so that we can better understand it. It is no more the "language of the universe" than money or cricket are. The universe has no concept of "three", and it's never heard of the transitive property. Mathematics is description, and as such is as much our invention as painting or writing.
Because we've created this framework and we've derived most of the rules of the system from some basic tenets of that framework (and entirely within the constraints of the system itself), we have an omniscient viewpoint on it and are able to prove and disprove things absolutely within the system.
You cannot, however long you spend trying, prove absolutely that adding 1 and 1 will get you 2, except on a theoretical level. You can demonstrate it all day long with a pair of sticks or apples or whatever you can lay hands on, but you can't call it Absolute Truth because you have no way of showing that there isn't, somewhere in the universe (or outside it, perhaps), a counterexample. To do so would require omniscience.
That's the difference between mathematics and physical sciences, and that's why no matter how much you prove with math, you cannot claim the same absolute certainty when applying that math to reality.
For further reading, I refer you to everyone else's posts on this thread. They've been more interesting and insightful than mine, anyway.
also, as a studying mathematician, i do believe that we can proove and disprove things absolutely. to think otherwise is incredibly naive given the relative success of humanity.
Mathematics is entirely artificial. It's based on rules and premises that we pretty much made up. You can prove things in math because it's a self-contained problem set, and you're looking at it from the outside with an omniscient view.
When you didn't invent the framework of the problem, it tends to be harder to prove a solution.
That said, you may never be able to prove a Unified Theory, because you can't ever be certain you've described every aspect of the problem set. But you can disprove a physical theory (or at least show it to be lacking) simply by finding a counterexample.
um.. what hype?
on
This is IT?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Everyone ("Time" included) seems to be babbling about all the "hype" surrounding IT/Ginger, but I haven't noticed much.
Every once in a while for the past couple of months, I'd come across some tiny blurb about "the much-hyped (IT|Ginger)". But these blurbs, which seemed to be few and far between, primarily dealt with the "hype" surrounding this thing. They would have been a sort of meta-hype, except that there weren't even enough of those articles to constitute anything more than a sort of collective raised eyebrow.
There wasn't even a concerted effort to be mysterious about it, as far as I can tell. Nobody was saying much, and nobody much cared when it did come up.
So now I'm supposed to believe that this scooter thing was made out to be the next Sliced Bread, that everyone was quivering in anticipation, and that rumours have been swirling for months about its mysterious nature? Bullshit, we've barely heard of it. This is a strange sort of revisionist history indeed.
Or maybe I just don't go to the same parties that Time reporters do.
Will the experts please explain the following: why can't I extract heat from the atmosphere, and turn it into electricity/motion/whatever? We have no problem doing this if there's lots of heat (geothermal power plants), but why can't I have a sort of "reverse air conditioner" that works at room temperate?
You don't need an expert for this one, you just need to think about it for a minute.
The way we use heat to generate electricity is by converting linear motion into rotational motion in a generator. We don't create the linear motion, really... You make water hot and give it only one place to go, and when it expands it goes there. Same deal with geothermal energy, even wind energy (though heat isn't involved in creating the linear motion, there).
So, if you want to just randomly generate electricity from a warm room, all you have to do is provide one exit for the warm air from the room, and have it lead to a colder room. You put a turbine in that passage, and you'll be able to convert the linear motion of the warm air moving into the cold room into rotational motion and turn a generator.
Problem is, you have to come up with a "cold room" that does not enter equilibrium with the warm room, and even if you come up with one of those, you're really not going to see particularly fast linear motion, unless the temperature difference is very great.
On the other hand, I really sucked at physics in school, so I could be wrong.:)
I would think that if you could convert a decent amount the heat thrown off by a CPU back into useful energy, the biggest gain for a computer would be that there would be less heat.
I couldn't care less what gets done with that energy... put a nice fluorescent light inside the case or something.
Well, the trick is that corporate sponsors also pay for a lot of academic research. Rather a lot of research wouldn't get done if the funds couldn't be cobbled together from both the government and the private sector.
Giving the private-sector sponsors some real incentive to keep it up only makes sense.
Chances are that you won't be paying licensing fees through those commercial implementors, because their funding of research at MIT has gained them access to the license already.
I'm 22 and my wishlist totals exactly one million dollars. (It consists of one million dollars, actually.)
But that's an absurd wishlist, and it's not the one I tell people about when they ask me for gift hints. That one's real short, and is full of things that cost five or ten bucks.
Who says you CAN get the B&O BeoSound Century? There's a Bang and Olufsen store about a quarter-mile from my apartment, and I wince every time I see the price labels.
What would be nice is a slim-profile (wall-mountable == good) stereo that doesn't cost both arms and legs and also have the silly design that Nakamichi does.
If I hang a stereo on the wall, I'm not going to want to feed discs in from the top and grope around the top edge for the play button.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's a diamond. Pay attention. ;)
Some of us just didn't bother to get an account for a while. ;)
As for whether those statements are accurate, I have no idea.
The flaw here seems to be that you can trick IE into behaving as if it's looking at a local file when it is in fact looking at a file it just received via HTTP.
You send it something it initially thinks is "HTML", thereby bypassing its warnings about executable files, but later decides is executable...and therefore runs.
At least, that's what I gleaned from the article... it was a bit sparse.
Never say never.
So you're looking at about an hour and twenty minutes of actual work... it comes out closer to $30/hr.
#debian is sort of notorious for this kind of crap. The kids in #slackware are generally much friendlier. ;)
If the DOI decided to shut down their entire network instead of taking those machines offline, that was their stupid decision.
On the other hand, if security is as lax as it seems, we all have (illegitimate, potential) access to said data. Maybe we'd better disconnect... ;)
Of course the judge should have this much power.. it's what we called a "check" in civics class. The executive branch is sucking, and nobody could make it stop sucking if the judicial branch had no power.
I confess, I do fail to see your point.
First of all, you can prove something beyond all doubt, that is what is meant by a "truth". I am speaking of the basis of all Mathematics, which is what all of Physics and all other sciences are creations of.
For the love of God, man, pay attention. I just described in two posts the circumstances in which you can and cannot prove something with absolute certainty. Believe me, I understand the concept of a mathematical proof. My point, pretty much in its entirety, is that you cannot apply the concept of mathematical proof to the physical universe outside of mathematics, because you don't know the entire problem space and never can without attaining an omniscience we generally attribute solely to deities. Within the realm of mathematics, that is obviously not the case.
We did not create all of Mathematics at once, like you are believing. Mathematics is based on a couple of basic "truths" and from those, Mathematics creates itself.
Didn't I state this explicitly? I'm pretty sure I did. Perhaps you'd like to go back and actually read my post? NB the fourth paragraph.
Oh, and just to let you know, without Mathematics, physical sciences would not and could never exist. Physical science is Mathematics in action. Mathematics is the basis of all science.
Why do you keep bringing this up? I never said otherwise. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. It's annoying; stop it.
You would do well to drop this idea you have that I don't "understand" mathematics. I've had a bit of math, including a few levels of college calculus. I've also had some instruction in formal proofs. Trust me, I get it. You can say otherwise til you're blue in the face, but until you actually address the content of my posts I can't see anyone taking you seriously, and I can't promise I'll bother to respond to your ravings again. You haven't written a single sentence that has any direct bearing on what I've said.
This is what we in the industry call a "troll".
I can't tell you how often I want to just write the following comment and go on to the next project:
Bad example, man. :)
Second, calm down. I never said mathematics wasn't useful, I never said science could get along just fine without it... in fact, I never said any of the things you've ascribed to me, except that mathematics is invented.
All I'm saying is that mathematics is a framework that we have imposed on the universe so that we can better understand it. It is no more the "language of the universe" than money or cricket are. The universe has no concept of "three", and it's never heard of the transitive property. Mathematics is description, and as such is as much our invention as painting or writing.
Because we've created this framework and we've derived most of the rules of the system from some basic tenets of that framework (and entirely within the constraints of the system itself), we have an omniscient viewpoint on it and are able to prove and disprove things absolutely within the system.
You cannot, however long you spend trying, prove absolutely that adding 1 and 1 will get you 2, except on a theoretical level. You can demonstrate it all day long with a pair of sticks or apples or whatever you can lay hands on, but you can't call it Absolute Truth because you have no way of showing that there isn't, somewhere in the universe (or outside it, perhaps), a counterexample. To do so would require omniscience.
That's the difference between mathematics and physical sciences, and that's why no matter how much you prove with math, you cannot claim the same absolute certainty when applying that math to reality.
For further reading, I refer you to everyone else's posts on this thread. They've been more interesting and insightful than mine, anyway.
Mathematics is entirely artificial. It's based on rules and premises that we pretty much made up. You can prove things in math because it's a self-contained problem set, and you're looking at it from the outside with an omniscient view.
When you didn't invent the framework of the problem, it tends to be harder to prove a solution.
That said, you may never be able to prove a Unified Theory, because you can't ever be certain you've described every aspect of the problem set. But you can disprove a physical theory (or at least show it to be lacking) simply by finding a counterexample.
Every once in a while for the past couple of months, I'd come across some tiny blurb about "the much-hyped (IT|Ginger)". But these blurbs, which seemed to be few and far between, primarily dealt with the "hype" surrounding this thing. They would have been a sort of meta-hype, except that there weren't even enough of those articles to constitute anything more than a sort of collective raised eyebrow.
There wasn't even a concerted effort to be mysterious about it, as far as I can tell. Nobody was saying much, and nobody much cared when it did come up.
So now I'm supposed to believe that this scooter thing was made out to be the next Sliced Bread, that everyone was quivering in anticipation, and that rumours have been swirling for months about its mysterious nature? Bullshit, we've barely heard of it. This is a strange sort of revisionist history indeed.
Or maybe I just don't go to the same parties that Time reporters do.
*foreheadslap*
And I even just made another post explaining this to someone. I really shouldn't try to think right after a nap.
You don't need an expert for this one, you just need to think about it for a minute.
The way we use heat to generate electricity is by converting linear motion into rotational motion in a generator. We don't create the linear motion, really... You make water hot and give it only one place to go, and when it expands it goes there. Same deal with geothermal energy, even wind energy (though heat isn't involved in creating the linear motion, there).
So, if you want to just randomly generate electricity from a warm room, all you have to do is provide one exit for the warm air from the room, and have it lead to a colder room. You put a turbine in that passage, and you'll be able to convert the linear motion of the warm air moving into the cold room into rotational motion and turn a generator.
Problem is, you have to come up with a "cold room" that does not enter equilibrium with the warm room, and even if you come up with one of those, you're really not going to see particularly fast linear motion, unless the temperature difference is very great.
On the other hand, I really sucked at physics in school, so I could be wrong. :)
I couldn't care less what gets done with that energy... put a nice fluorescent light inside the case or something.
Giving the private-sector sponsors some real incentive to keep it up only makes sense.
Chances are that you won't be paying licensing fees through those commercial implementors, because their funding of research at MIT has gained them access to the license already.
That doesn't make you cool, that makes you laughable.
But that's an absurd wishlist, and it's not the one I tell people about when they ask me for gift hints. That one's real short, and is full of things that cost five or ten bucks.
The trick is to know your audience.
What would be nice is a slim-profile (wall-mountable == good) stereo that doesn't cost both arms and legs and also have the silly design that Nakamichi does.
If I hang a stereo on the wall, I'm not going to want to feed discs in from the top and grope around the top edge for the play button.
Longer than, say, the remaining week they're going to be around? Good!