approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.) ( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks (x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (x) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it (x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it (x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems (x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes (x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money (x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP (x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes (x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft (x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo (x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves (x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply: (x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical (x) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck ( ) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks (x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually (x) Sending email should be free (x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem ( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you: ( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
She used to have a real problem with the neighborhood birds picking on her cat and stealing its food. So she goes to one of those "Everything 99 Cents" sh8tholes and picks up a long cord of cheap bright yellow tinsel, the kind you'd spiral around a Christmas tree. She takes that tinsel and wraps it all over her porch railings- up and down around and around, so that it's everywhere. I don't know how much the neighbors' property values suffer but it sure keeps the birds away. It's almost as if they have taste. They don't want to be seen anywhere near that stuff.
How the hell was this determined? Particularly the wobbly Uranium nucleus. Is it just a theory based on mathematical predictions, or is it actually based on direct observations like X-ray, neutron or electron diffraction studies?
In principle the nucleons can be approximated as particles existing in a square potential well, defined by the positions of all the other particles. Solving for a wave function in a potential well like that reveals a set of solutions with associated quantum numbers, which turn out to be somewhate analogous to those calculated for the hydrogen atom with its inverse-square potential, and which we can identify in the energy levels and spectra of real, nonidealized nuclei.
Things are complicated by the fact that the potential within a nucleus is not strictly definable as a potential. It is created by the sum of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces and these fall off at different rates. The nuclear force is short range, but the electromagnetic force reaches all the way across the nucleus. So when they reach a certain size you see the effects of the charge buildup. Large scale movements of particles through the nucleus become evident, and sometimes pieces even break off if merely poked by a slow neutron. Your skepticism is not unreasonable. In fact researchers had a hard time believing their own experiments when they exposed uranium to neutrons and suddenly had to explain the appearance of barium.
I confess I have no idea what shape the average nucleus is - not that much of a physicist but neutrons in orbitals - what are these orbitals orbiting precisely??
I refer you to the shell model of the nucleus. Maybe I should have called them "shells" and not "orbitals". Still, the nucleus is not a still life like a bunch of grapes. Each particle is moving around in a shell with an identifiable set of quantum numbers.
Oxygen has 8 protons, (for the most part) 8 neutrons and (in the stable state) 8 electrons - the electrons are arranged so that there are two on the internal 1s orbital then two in the 2s and four more in the 2p orbital - if this was filled it would have 6 and would then be an O(2- superscript) ion... the bit about orbit shapes would seem to refer to d and f orbitals but well I got a bit lost in the bs science.
Look, these are the nuclear magic numbers: 2,8,20,28,50,82,126. 2 is helium. 8 is oxygen. There is no point in arguing about it.
Everyone seems surprised that nuclei are not always spheres. Lopsidedness is common in nuclei. O-16, for example, has a complete set of filled proton and neutron shells (making it the nuclear equivalent of a noble gas like the helium nucleus). If you add another neutron to make O-17, the neutron fills the first available orbital (an s-orbital) in the next, empty shell. This means it will tend to zig zag back and forth in a little straight line through the center of the nucleus. Since the other particles are always attracted to it and moving toward wherever it is, the rest of the nucleus gets distended from a round sphere and stretched in the direction of the neutron's motion. O-18 is even more football-shaped because there are two neutrons in that s-orbital now. Of course, in the case of s-orbitals there is little angular momentum to use as a reference, so the axis is indeterminate and it doesn't make any sense to say the football is "pointing" in any given direction. But many nuclei are distended by orbitals with definite angular momentum, and many are distended into shapes that are not footballs. Disks are common. The nuclei of heavy elements like uranium are shaped like light bulbs, with a definite axis. The "bulge" in the bulb sloshes back and forth along the main axis, onto each side of the center of mass.
Plus there were all the cutesy touches that turned some people off, like calling their Java development environment "MrJ" (WTF???).
I thought it was just MRJ (MacIntosh Runtime for Java) which always seemed pretty straightforward to me. Are you saying the R is lower case, as in "Mister Jay"?
That is, without a doubt, the most nonsensical sig I've ever read.
I liked it because it struck me as open to interpretation. You can take it at face value, or as a bit of self-deprecating sarcasm. But now that you made me think about it, it really doesn't make too much sense, does it?
A friend of mine at work just got a G5 for his replacement machine. Everyone in the office was coming over to slobber over it and admire it all week as he set everything up on it.
Then he came out of a meeting the other day and found the screen frozen with an immobile mouse cursor- the thing had locked up spontaneously while he was gone. So he did some Googling and found a lot of people complaining about a problem with the G5 motherboards. Nobody seems to know what it is, except that replacing the motherboard fixes it.
I don't know what is up with this guy. His logic board gets fried, so he says that he can't stand hardware lock-in. It seems like just a rant, and doesn't really make sense.
Agreed... The "guilty" question is the really puzzling thing:
It also raises the obvious question: have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?
Why would you feel guilty for not using a F/OSS operating system? This is just ideology run amuck. Programmers and engineers need to eat too. We can't all work for free.
I'm not even an Apple user, because of the cost. But Apple makes a good product and charges what it's worth. You get a well designed package, with hardware and software components designed by the same manufacturer to work together as a system. I can't go to Fry's, buy a cart full of cheap commodity PC hardware, and expect to (easily) run Mac OS X on it. So what? Avoiding vendor lock-in is one thing, but why would you feel "guilty" for using it?
JSPs are compiled the first time any user hits the page (meaning the first time any person ever hits the page, its compiled, everytime after that, the appserver uses the compiled version unless the jsp code has changed since the last compile). But I'm sure this isn't what he meant when he said java files are compiled on each platform.
What you say is true for servlets. For JSP you're leaving out a step (or implying it when you say "compiled") unless JSP has changed since I last used it in 2000. The sequence is JSP ->.java file ->.class file -> hotspot internal recompile. The.java file is what is generated on the first page hit and you can find it in a directory maintained by the app server. (It defines a class extending HttpServlet.) A lot of times I had to figure out why a JSP wasn't behaving correctly by checking its.java source file to see what was in it.
You can read it, but it's really unfit for human consumption.
It was called the ICS (Internet Chess Service) and I remember playing games on it and getting a rating in 1991. There was quite a ruckus when Daniel Sleator converted it to the ICC (Internet Chess Club) in 1992, a commercial operation. Previously it had been free. I remember people ranting on USENET about the coming commercialization of the Internet, and predicting that within ten years time it would cost fifty cents to ping a server. FreeICS came into being soon afterwards. It used the same client/server protocol as ICS/ICC and you could configure a client to work with either server (ICC charged for the logon). The FreeICS server software is online with a GPL license.
I myself am allergic to many perfumes, as are most members on both sides of my family.
Sending a perfumed resume is never a good idea. Many possible employers are allergic to perfumes. It's the perogative of the smart job-hunter to find a substance with a strong, memorable odor that nobody is allergic to and that will create a strong impression. This also must be cheap and easy to obtain on a job-seeker's limited budget, since you may be sending it to many people.
Once you have succeeded in filling a small cardboard box with such a material, print multiple copies of your resume and tape these to the box, covering it. Set the box on the employer's doorstep, light it on fire, and run away. This is a sure way for your resume to garner some attention.
It's not just ICMP. TCP (HTTP) connections cannot be established with this IP on port 80 (all that matters, really).
> telnet 202.63.206.88 80 Connecting To 202.63.206.88...Could not open connection to the host, on port 80.
A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.
There's no point in a slashdotting/DDoS since the U.S. connectivity provider has already choked off the flow of packets to this server in Pakistan. Pinging 202.63.206.88 times out.
There's no point in a slashdotting/DDoS since the U.S. connectivity provider has already choked off the flow of packets to this server in Pakistan. Pinging 202.63.206.88 times out.
If you put world readable documents in a public shared folder on a shared computer system, you have no right to complain when other system users read or copy them.
After the contents of those memos were made public in The Wall Street Journal editorial pages and The Washington Times, Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, made a preliminary inquiry and described himself as "mortified that this improper, unethical and simply unacceptable breach of confidential files may have occurred on my watch."
Hatch also confirmed that "at least one current member of the Judiciary Committee staff had improperly accessed at least some of the documents referenced in media reports."
The law in question:
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 121 > Sec. 2701. Sec. 2701. - Unlawful access to stored communications (a) Offense. - Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section whoever - (1) intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided; or (2) intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility; and thereby obtains, alters, or prevents authorized access to a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage in such system shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
It doesn't matter if the security was easy to get through. The access was unauthorized and that is what makes it illegal.
According to a Time Magazine survey 19 percent of respondents believe their income places them in the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Another 20 percent say they're not in the top 1 percent now but will be soon.
Making NASA stronger == Kill NASA. Don't Leave Children Behind == Leave them behind. Healthy Forests == Cut down the forests.
I'm a space fan. I like manned space programs too. But they are going to wreck what NASA does do well, scientific research, for a program they will also not complete.
You forgot:
"Clear Skies Act" == degraded air quality standards "Improve Head Start" == dismantle Head Start
Your post makes an excellent point and it's a shame you were moderated down for political reasons. NASA is doing good science with their robots, which are getting better and better. They are making impressive progress with what they have been given to work with. All of it will be scrapped for a pointless manned mission that will lose its funding after the election.
No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up with these people.
The point isn't really for YOU to use an obfuscator, it's how to recognize your code as being yours if someone has obfuscated it by altering the constant pool. If the obfuscator doesn't rearrange actual bytecodes and only messes with the constant pool the actual bytecode instructions don't change.
Typically, when we run Retroguard on our unobfuscated JAR during the nightly build, we get a reduction to 6 MB from an unobfuscated size of 9 MB. Retroguard renames all fields and methods to have 1-2 letter names (you have to be careful with reflection). I believe it also rips out decompile-friendly stuff like the LineNumberTable and LocalVariableTable attributes.
Most obfuscators are based on constant pool attacks. They go through the constant pool and give your fields and methods lovely names like void, int, class, and new. (Along with the standard fare- as many overloads as possible of a(), etc.) The JVM doesn't care, but the language spec does. So you can still decompile it, and the decompiler will cheerfully spit out code that doesn't compile because many of the variable names have been renamed to reserved words.
However, constant pool rearrangements don't significantly change the bytecodes. (And generally, obfuscators don't mess with the order of entries in the constant pool. If they do, they have to run through the actual bytecodes and fix the operands of certain instructions.) So bytecode is not altered by most obfuscators and you can easily develop a hashcode function for a class file definition that is based on the bytes in the bytecode segments and that will produce the same hashcode for a class before and after treatment by a run-of-the-mill obfuscator. So if you're trying to prevent people from copying your code, obfuscators work pretty well. If you're trying to hide stolen code from the original author who may be looking for such hash collisions, you have to use a better obfuscator which will screw with the bytecode itself.
Obfuscation has a nice side effect of shrinking the final JAR file, since most of the bulk of a Java class is in the constant pool and the obfuscator tries to rename everything to "a". In fact, I heard someone saying that the word "java" appears so many times in the constant pool of Java's standard library that if the name "Oak" hadn't been taken, the typical size of a JVM download would have been reduced by some absurdly significant percentage.
Slashdot Mirror
(Apologies to those who have seen this before.)
Your company advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative (x) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(x) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(x) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(x) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
(x) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Microsoft
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Yahoo
(x) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(x) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
(x) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(x) Sending email should be free
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid company for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
She used to have a real problem with the neighborhood birds picking on her cat and stealing its food. So she goes to one of those "Everything 99 Cents" sh8tholes and picks up a long cord of cheap bright yellow tinsel, the kind you'd spiral around a Christmas tree. She takes that tinsel and wraps it all over her porch railings- up and down around and around, so that it's everywhere. I don't know how much the neighbors' property values suffer but it sure keeps the birds away. It's almost as if they have taste. They don't want to be seen anywhere near that stuff.
How the hell was this determined? Particularly the wobbly Uranium nucleus. Is it just a theory based on mathematical predictions, or is it actually based on direct observations like X-ray, neutron or electron diffraction studies?
Yes.
A number of experimental tools are available for nuclear shape determination:
-The electric quadrupole moment
-Neutron scattering experiments
-Giant dipole resonance
-Momentum distributions of collision fragments
In principle the nucleons can be approximated as particles existing in a square potential well, defined by the positions of all the other particles. Solving for a wave function in a potential well like that reveals a set of solutions with associated quantum numbers, which turn out to be somewhate analogous to those calculated for the hydrogen atom with its inverse-square potential, and which we can identify in the energy levels and spectra of real, nonidealized nuclei.
Things are complicated by the fact that the potential within a nucleus is not strictly definable as a potential. It is created by the sum of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces and these fall off at different rates. The nuclear force is short range, but the electromagnetic force reaches all the way across the nucleus. So when they reach a certain size you see the effects of the charge buildup. Large scale movements of particles through the nucleus become evident, and sometimes pieces even break off if merely poked by a slow neutron. Your skepticism is not unreasonable. In fact researchers had a hard time believing their own experiments when they exposed uranium to neutrons and suddenly had to explain the appearance of barium.
I confess I have no idea what shape the average nucleus is - not that much of a physicist but neutrons in orbitals - what are these orbitals orbiting precisely??
I refer you to the shell model of the nucleus. Maybe I should have called them "shells" and not "orbitals". Still, the nucleus is not a still life like a bunch of grapes. Each particle is moving around in a shell with an identifiable set of quantum numbers.
Oxygen has 8 protons, (for the most part) 8 neutrons and (in the stable state) 8 electrons - the electrons are arranged so that there are two on the internal 1s orbital then two in the 2s and four more in the 2p orbital - if this was filled it would have 6 and would then be an O(2- superscript) ion... the bit about orbit shapes would seem to refer to d and f orbitals but well I got a bit lost in the bs science.
Look, these are the nuclear magic numbers: 2,8,20,28,50,82,126. 2 is helium. 8 is oxygen. There is no point in arguing about it.
Everyone seems surprised that nuclei are not always spheres. Lopsidedness is common in nuclei. O-16, for example, has a complete set of filled proton and neutron shells (making it the nuclear equivalent of a noble gas like the helium nucleus). If you add another neutron to make O-17, the neutron fills the first available orbital (an s-orbital) in the next, empty shell. This means it will tend to zig zag back and forth in a little straight line through the center of the nucleus. Since the other particles are always attracted to it and moving toward wherever it is, the rest of the nucleus gets distended from a round sphere and stretched in the direction of the neutron's motion. O-18 is even more football-shaped because there are two neutrons in that s-orbital now. Of course, in the case of s-orbitals there is little angular momentum to use as a reference, so the axis is indeterminate and it doesn't make any sense to say the football is "pointing" in any given direction.
But many nuclei are distended by orbitals with definite angular momentum, and many are distended into shapes that are not footballs. Disks are common. The nuclei of heavy elements like uranium are shaped like light bulbs, with a definite axis. The "bulge" in the bulb sloshes back and forth along the main axis, onto each side of the center of mass.
Plus, I was kidding. Say, why'd you pick that one element out of the whole post? Just curious... Maybe it resonates with you subconsciously. Hmm?
Touchy, aren't we? I agreed with the rest of it. I just found the "MrJ" thing interesting.
Plus there were all the cutesy touches that turned some people off, like calling their Java development environment "MrJ" (WTF???).
I thought it was just MRJ (MacIntosh Runtime for Java) which always seemed pretty straightforward to me. Are you saying the R is lower case, as in "Mister Jay"?
That is, without a doubt, the most nonsensical sig I've ever read.
I liked it because it struck me as open to interpretation. You can take it at face value, or as a bit of self-deprecating sarcasm. But now that you made me think about it, it really doesn't make too much sense, does it?
A friend of mine at work just got a G5 for his replacement machine. Everyone in the office was coming over to slobber over it and admire it all week as he set everything up on it.
Then he came out of a meeting the other day and found the screen frozen with an immobile mouse cursor- the thing had locked up spontaneously while he was gone. So he did some Googling and found a lot of people complaining about a problem with the G5 motherboards. Nobody seems to know what it is, except that replacing the motherboard fixes it.
I don't know what is up with this guy. His logic board gets fried, so he says that he can't stand hardware lock-in. It seems like just a rant, and doesn't really make sense.
Agreed... The "guilty" question is the really puzzling thing:
It also raises the obvious question: have you ever felt guilty over using Mac OS X instead of Linux?
Why would you feel guilty for not using a F/OSS operating system? This is just ideology run amuck. Programmers and engineers need to eat too. We can't all work for free.
I'm not even an Apple user, because of the cost. But Apple makes a good product and charges what it's worth. You get a well designed package, with hardware and software components designed by the same manufacturer to work together as a system. I can't go to Fry's, buy a cart full of cheap commodity PC hardware, and expect to (easily) run Mac OS X on it. So what? Avoiding vendor lock-in is one thing, but why would you feel "guilty" for using it?
Aye, it was bad to nitpick in a place like this.
.java file -> .class file -> hotspot internal recompile. The .java file is what is generated on the first page hit and you can find it in a directory maintained by the app server. (It defines a class extending HttpServlet.) A lot of times I had to figure out why a JSP wasn't behaving correctly by checking its .java source file to see what was in it.
Indeed...
JSPs are compiled the first time any user hits the page (meaning the first time any person ever hits the page, its compiled, everytime after that, the appserver uses the compiled version unless the jsp code has changed since the last compile). But I'm sure this isn't what he meant when he said java files are compiled on each platform.
What you say is true for servlets. For JSP you're leaving out a step (or implying it when you say "compiled") unless JSP has changed since I last used it in 2000. The sequence is JSP ->
You can read it, but it's really unfit for human consumption.
It was called the ICS (Internet Chess Service) and I remember playing games on it and getting a rating in 1991. There was quite a ruckus when Daniel Sleator converted it to the ICC (Internet Chess Club) in 1992, a commercial operation. Previously it had been free. I remember people ranting on USENET about the coming commercialization of the Internet, and predicting that within ten years time it would cost fifty cents to ping a server. FreeICS came into being soon afterwards. It used the same client/server protocol as ICS/ICC and you could configure a client to work with either server (ICC charged for the logon). The FreeICS server software is online with a GPL license.
I myself am allergic to many perfumes, as are most members on both sides of my family.
Sending a perfumed resume is never a good idea. Many possible employers are allergic to perfumes. It's the perogative of the smart job-hunter to find a substance with a strong, memorable odor that nobody is allergic to and that will create a strong impression. This also must be cheap and easy to obtain on a job-seeker's limited budget, since you may be sending it to many people.
Once you have succeeded in filling a small cardboard box with such a material, print multiple copies of your resume and tape these to the box, covering it. Set the box on the employer's doorstep, light it on fire, and run away. This is a sure way for your resume to garner some attention.
It's not just ICMP. TCP (HTTP) connections cannot be established with this IP on port 80 (all that matters, really).
> telnet 202.63.206.88 80
Connecting To 202.63.206.88...Could not open connection to the host, on port 80.
A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.
Here is a repost of the email on news.admin.net-abuse.sightings.
" >http://www.fdic.gov/idverify/cgi-bin/index.htm</a >
The link text:
<a href="http://www.fdic.gov@202.63.206.88/index.htm
There's no point in a slashdotting/DDoS since the U.S. connectivity provider has already choked off the flow of packets to this server in Pakistan. Pinging 202.63.206.88 times out.
Whoops, I clicked submit on the wrong story. Somebody mod the parent down to hell.
Here is a repost of the email on news.admin.net-abuse.sightings.
" >http://www.fdic.gov/idverify/cgi-bin/index.htm</a >
The link text:
<a href="http://www.fdic.gov@202.63.206.88/index.htm
There's no point in a slashdotting/DDoS since the U.S. connectivity provider has already choked off the flow of packets to this server in Pakistan. Pinging 202.63.206.88 times out.
The law in question:
It doesn't matter if the security was easy to get through. The access was unauthorized and that is what makes it illegal.
David Brooks used it to bash Gore in an article published in the NYT in in 2000 called The Triumph of Hope Over Self-Interest.
Of course, that was in 2000. I'd like to see that poll now.
According to a Time Magazine survey 19 percent of respondents believe their income places them in the top 1 percent of taxpayers. Another 20 percent say they're not in the top 1 percent now but will be soon.
Making NASA stronger == Kill NASA.
Don't Leave Children Behind == Leave them behind.
Healthy Forests == Cut down the forests.
I'm a space fan. I like manned space programs too. But they are going to wreck what NASA does do well, scientific research, for a program they will also not complete.
You forgot:
"Clear Skies Act" == degraded air quality standards
"Improve Head Start" == dismantle Head Start
Your post makes an excellent point and it's a shame you were moderated down for political reasons. NASA is doing good science with their robots, which are getting better and better. They are making impressive progress with what they have been given to work with. All of it will be scrapped for a pointless manned mission that will lose its funding after the election.
No matter how cynical I get, I can't keep up with these people.
The point isn't really for YOU to use an obfuscator, it's how to recognize your code as being yours if someone has obfuscated it by altering the constant pool. If the obfuscator doesn't rearrange actual bytecodes and only messes with the constant pool the actual bytecode instructions don't change.
Typically, when we run Retroguard on our unobfuscated JAR during the nightly build, we get a reduction to 6 MB from an unobfuscated size of 9 MB. Retroguard renames all fields and methods to have 1-2 letter names (you have to be careful with reflection). I believe it also rips out decompile-friendly stuff like the LineNumberTable and LocalVariableTable attributes.
You can run an obfuscator, like Retroguard.
Most obfuscators are based on constant pool attacks. They go through the constant pool and give your fields and methods lovely names like void, int, class, and new. (Along with the standard fare- as many overloads as possible of a(), etc.) The JVM doesn't care, but the language spec does. So you can still decompile it, and the decompiler will cheerfully spit out code that doesn't compile because many of the variable names have been renamed to reserved words.
However, constant pool rearrangements don't significantly change the bytecodes. (And generally, obfuscators don't mess with the order of entries in the constant pool. If they do, they have to run through the actual bytecodes and fix the operands of certain instructions.) So bytecode is not altered by most obfuscators and you can easily develop a hashcode function for a class file definition that is based on the bytes in the bytecode segments and that will produce the same hashcode for a class before and after treatment by a run-of-the-mill obfuscator. So if you're trying to prevent people from copying your code, obfuscators work pretty well. If you're trying to hide stolen code from the original author who may be looking for such hash collisions, you have to use a better obfuscator which will screw with the bytecode itself.
Obfuscation has a nice side effect of shrinking the final JAR file, since most of the bulk of a Java class is in the constant pool and the obfuscator tries to rename everything to "a". In fact, I heard someone saying that the word "java" appears so many times in the constant pool of Java's standard library that if the name "Oak" hadn't been taken, the typical size of a JVM download would have been reduced by some absurdly significant percentage.
That's more analogous to superconductivity since it involves a Cooper pair mechanism. Except the fermions are ppn nuclei, not electrons.