The RIP bill has been used frequently and even by those who were not supposed to.
When the government sought to introduce RIP2 recently their investigation showed that ISPs were handing over information without court orders and that the law was being exercised by lowly council workers that were not intended to be provided access to users data.
Boot from Install CD 1 and, at the text prompt, type 'linux rescue'.
Linux will boot from the CD and present you with a command line interface and and a sub-set of the normal command line tools.
Only the essentials for system administration are there, but everything you need (fdisk etc.) should be included.
Other distro's probably support this too. I've only done it with Red Hat.
If your hardware doesn't support booting from CD, then you can get the same result by booting from an install floppy (once you've done a bit of network configuration).
It is there. The Red Hat kernel calls it Tux and has various user space control tools etc. Linus' kernel also has it, labelled as khttpd, if I recall correctly.
Not sure when it got merged in, but it is already a working feature of the kernel.
It is true that cracking hundreds of machines isn't viable, so attackers will go for the higher level... Attack the ISOS components which do legitimate reconstruction of files from all of the sources by misrepresenting your file read/writes as legitimate traffic. That way, ISOS system istelf will take care of managing the many machines on which the data is stored.
If you are really lucky, it might even unencrypt the reassembled file for you as well if you can convince it that you are the rightful recipient.
Of course, I'm not saying this would be easy (hard to tell since the system doesn't exist yet!), but the distributed nature of the files wouldnt prevent subvertion at the level I've described.
But, if they don't go to the lengths of changing the format, the recipient can't read it, which makes writing the document a waste of time.
Given all the frigging around and clicking all over involved in generating a document anyway, clicking on "Save as" rather than "Save" doesn't seem too much more to ask.
Far simpler than invoking the spell-checker or dealing with that damn paper clip, for a start.
If you're asking "Why should users have to bother changing the format", you should ask Microsoft why they default on a secret standard.
7.1 was the first version to include firewall configuration as part of the install. What the firewall option does is to set up some ipchains rules.
The beta of 7.2 (roswell) which has just come out does the same thing.
Really, though, you'd want to use iptables since it is a lot more configurable than ipchains. Hopefully a version which does default firewall config with iptables will come along soon.
Neither ipchains or iptables are solely a Red Hat thing. They're both in the standard linux kernel, with iptables having appeared in 2.4.
Any recent distro should allow rules to be set with either method.
Incidentally, Red Hat 7.1 and up have tools called lokkit and firewall-config to make setting ipchains rules easier.
There are.iso images for the distribution, including both installation disks, source, powertools and documentation, on their FTP server and the mirrors.
Point 2, and possibly 3, are covered, therefore.
Disclaimer - Next week I start work for RedHat, so I'm not exactly impartial
Is the fact that information on the web isn't accessible to a lot of people really a reason not to post it?
Incidentally, I'm not sure about the word "minorities" here, since the majority of the world's population have far more immediate needs than relative luxuries like access to the Internet.
Internet users understabd that web sites often have an editorial slant -/. is pro-open source, anything associated with MS is pro-MS and will push banner ads and drivel on about "freedom to innovate" etc.
The danger of being ghettoised is mitigated by the sophistication and intelligence of users. If you are sensible enough to realise that you should get a range of views, (as most people are), then hit lots of different pages.
Each morning I skim about 10 different news/tech sites and, between them, they give me a fair view of what is really going on.
Individual sites might only push a particular view, but readers will get used to jumping across a few to avoid monotony and boredom.
This is a very interesting (and huge) book. About 3 inches thick in the dead tree version.
I know this because it has sat on my creaking shelf since I bought it a couple of years ago.
A bit like setting off on a long journey, it isn't got the faint hearted. Excellent read though with some great points on code optimisation and efficiency.
After reading those bits, the Visual Basic project I was working on at the time looked as bloated and ungainly as Jabba, which, indeed, it was.
I fear for the Walmart Customer Service Dept. All day they get calls about the sell-by date on fish fingers and then people start calling asking why the product they bought last week seems not to have sendmail in runlevel 5.
Three people, you say.... "The Dolphin Method", indeed.
Obviously, I'm laughing my socks off here. Do you have a URL or a reference for these "research findings".
Also, how does someone get onto one of these research programs? Mind you, I wouldn't really want to be the one keeping the other two together and I certainly wouldn't want to be the one one on the receiving end.
Not even for a free ride in a zero-G simulator.
Mod the parent up, because it is the funniest research quote I've read in a long time.
Before we get too euphoric, Martin Bell's triumphant defeat of Hamilton was slightly facilitated by both Labour and the Lib Dems not putting up candidates.
Also, he's amounted to very little since the election
(An aside: I am working with a group developing ways to simplify the income tax code using a computer program that will find politically neutral simplifications, taking the whole issue out of politics. It's an exciting project, requiring fascinating algorithms, but more than we can get into here.)
This theme crops up on/. once in a while and it is nonsense.
You simply can't have politically neutral taxes, no matter how fascinating your algorithms are. For instance, here in the UK we have an income tax. The proportion of your gross salary which goes in tax increases as your earn more.
That might seem reasonable enough, and I reckon that even I could hammer out a suitable algorithm but some conservatives oppose taxing that way. They wouldn't accept those alogrithms.
A few years ago the conservatives gave us a flat rate tax where everyone from cleaners to the Prime Minister paid the same amount of money, regardless of their wealth. Can't ask for a simpler algorithm than that.
To say that it didn't play well would be an understatement. There were full scale riots before it was repealed.
Two approaches, both vigorously resisted by groups which, in different ways, are very powerful. Is your algorithm going to produce flat or gradulated taxes? Either way, there's going to be some serious moaning.
My point is that taxation policy is always going to be "political". Technology won't stop that. There will always be debate and there will always be calls for reform.
All this "politically neutral" stuff just gets on my nerves. Strange how you never hear poor and homeless people saying that politics is over and we can happily take money out of politics.
Arthur C Clarke said that "any science that is advanced enough is indistinguishable from magic." - Even ESR quoted that in CatB
Since only a tiny proportion of computer/internet users have the faintest idea how any of it works, no wonder we end up with a lot of mysticism and superstition.
People can have whatever faith they like, so long as they have the humility to acknowledge that they're probably wrong, at least on the details.
The author is right about many techies just not getting the way laws work in the real world.
Yesterday(?), everybody joined in to kick RMS for being obsessed with the finer details of licenses and for nit-picking over KDE going GPL.
RMS certainly is an odd one, but he's thinking about the law, about copyright and about how to protect OSS freedoms in the real world.
Just being in the right (in your own view), doesn't mean that everyone else is going to agree and lawyers will walk all over you if all you've got is a notion that your side of the argument is "fair".
Also, it's interesting that the author describes geeks as arrogant, self-satisfied and complacent. Makes a change from the persecuted loners Katz keeps on about.
Slashdot Mirror
The RIP bill has been used frequently and even by those who were not supposed to.
When the government sought to introduce RIP2 recently their investigation showed that ISPs were handing over information without court orders and that the law was being exercised by lowly council workers that were not intended to be provided access to users data.
Boot from Install CD 1 and, at the text prompt, type 'linux rescue'.
Linux will boot from the CD and present you with a command line interface and and a sub-set of the normal command line tools.
Only the essentials for system administration are there, but everything you need (fdisk etc.) should be included.
Other distro's probably support this too. I've only done it with Red Hat.
If your hardware doesn't support booting from CD, then you can get the same result by booting from an install floppy (once you've done a bit of network configuration).
It is there. The Red Hat kernel calls it Tux and has various user space control tools etc. Linus' kernel also has it, labelled as khttpd, if I recall correctly.
Not sure when it got merged in, but it is already a working feature of the kernel.
It is true that cracking hundreds of machines isn't viable, so attackers will go for the higher level... Attack the ISOS components which do legitimate reconstruction of files from all of the sources by misrepresenting your file read/writes as legitimate traffic. That way, ISOS system istelf will take care of managing the many machines on which the data is stored.
If you are really lucky, it might even unencrypt the reassembled file for you as well if you can convince it that you are the rightful recipient.
Of course, I'm not saying this would be easy (hard to tell since the system doesn't exist yet!), but the distributed nature of the files wouldnt prevent subvertion at the level I've described.
"Understanding the Linux kernel" and "Linux device drivers", both from oreilly, are very good references.
Heartily recommended
But, if they don't go to the lengths of changing the format, the recipient can't read it, which makes writing the document a waste of time.
Given all the frigging around and clicking all over involved in generating a document anyway, clicking on "Save as" rather than "Save" doesn't seem too much more to ask.
Far simpler than invoking the spell-checker or dealing with that damn paper clip, for a start.
If you're asking "Why should users have to bother changing the format", you should ask Microsoft why they default on a secret standard.
7.1 was the first version to include firewall configuration as part of the install. What the firewall option does is to set up some ipchains rules.
The beta of 7.2 (roswell) which has just come out does the same thing.
Really, though, you'd want to use iptables since it is a lot more configurable than ipchains. Hopefully a version which does default firewall config with iptables will come along soon.
Neither ipchains or iptables are solely a Red Hat thing. They're both in the standard linux kernel, with iptables having appeared in 2.4.
Any recent distro should allow rules to be set with either method.
Incidentally, Red Hat 7.1 and up have tools called lokkit and firewall-config to make setting ipchains rules easier.
Point 2, and possibly 3, are covered, therefore.
Disclaimer - Next week I start work for RedHat, so I'm not exactly impartial
Incidentally, I'm not sure about the word "minorities" here, since the majority of the world's population have far more immediate needs than relative luxuries like access to the Internet.
The danger of being ghettoised is mitigated by the sophistication and intelligence of users. If you are sensible enough to realise that you should get a range of views, (as most people are), then hit lots of different pages.
Each morning I skim about 10 different news/tech sites and, between them, they give me a fair view of what is really going on.
Individual sites might only push a particular view, but readers will get used to jumping across a few to avoid monotony and boredom.
About 3 inches thick in the dead tree version.
I know this because it has sat on my creaking shelf since I bought it a couple of years ago.
A bit like setting off on a long journey, it isn't got the faint hearted. Excellent read though with some great points on code optimisation and efficiency.
After reading those bits, the Visual Basic project I was working on at the time looked as bloated and ungainly as Jabba, which, indeed, it was.
I fear for the Walmart Customer Service Dept. All day they get calls about the sell-by date on fish fingers and then people start calling asking why the product they bought last week seems not to have sendmail in runlevel 5.
Who buys an OS on a supermarket trip?
Three people, you say.... "The Dolphin Method", indeed.
Obviously, I'm laughing my socks off here. Do you have a URL or a reference for these "research findings".
Also, how does someone get onto one of these research programs? Mind you, I wouldn't really want to be the one keeping the other two together and I certainly wouldn't want to be the one one on the receiving end.
Not even for a free ride in a zero-G simulator.
Mod the parent up, because it is the funniest research quote I've read in a long time.
Sounds stupid, but I'm sure I didn't make it up.
Also, he's amounted to very little since the election
Anyone else see a contradiction here?
This theme crops up on /. once in a while and it is nonsense.
You simply can't have politically neutral taxes, no matter how fascinating your algorithms are. For instance, here in the UK we have an income tax. The proportion of your gross salary which goes in tax increases as your earn more.
That might seem reasonable enough, and I reckon that even I could hammer out a suitable algorithm but some conservatives oppose taxing that way. They wouldn't accept those alogrithms.
A few years ago the conservatives gave us a flat rate tax where everyone from cleaners to the Prime Minister paid the same amount of money, regardless of their wealth. Can't ask for a simpler algorithm than that.
To say that it didn't play well would be an understatement. There were full scale riots before it was repealed.
Two approaches, both vigorously resisted by groups which, in different ways, are very powerful. Is your algorithm going to produce flat or gradulated taxes? Either way, there's going to be some serious moaning.
My point is that taxation policy is always going to be "political". Technology won't stop that. There will always be debate and there will always be calls for reform.
All this "politically neutral" stuff just gets on my nerves. Strange how you never hear poor and homeless people saying that politics is over and we can happily take money out of politics.
It is just lazy, short-sighted and complacent.
Loki are already working on a port and demo'd it at an expo recently. No sign of a release date yet, though
Since only a tiny proportion of computer/internet users have the faintest idea how any of it works, no wonder we end up with a lot of mysticism and superstition.
People can have whatever faith they like, so long as they have the humility to acknowledge that they're probably wrong, at least on the details.
Yesterday(?), everybody joined in to kick RMS for being obsessed with the finer details of licenses and for nit-picking over KDE going GPL.
RMS certainly is an odd one, but he's thinking about the law, about copyright and about how to protect OSS freedoms in the real world.
Just being in the right (in your own view), doesn't mean that everyone else is going to agree and lawyers will walk all over you if all you've got is a notion that your side of the argument is "fair".
Also, it's interesting that the author describes geeks as arrogant, self-satisfied and complacent. Makes a change from the persecuted loners Katz keeps on about.