IIRC, this saying doesn't mean that it's green as in the color green, but green as in underripe or not matured. Did you know that blackberries are red when they're green?
Not really. You're still using the service, even if you're not using the official client. And you have to have an account for each of the services you want to use (AIM, Yahoo, MSN, Jabber, etc). I for one refuse to sign up for an MSN account of any sort. Using its messaging service with or without the official client ranks only slightly lower on my not-gonna-do-it list. Then again, if that doesn't bother you, then for you, the problem is solved.
That's true, but such an exploit is more difficult in that it must be specifically crafted for the function being overflowed.
Unless you're shooting in the dark, buffer overflow attacks start with the knowledge that something can definitely be overflowed into. If I'm using a buffer in an unsafe way, what's the difference whether the data that you can overflow into is the return address or the address of a function that will be used later? Not much. Granted, in order for an overflow to work in the way I described, the program can't set this address after the overflow, which can make such an exploit more difficult. Still, either way, you have a way to make my program go to a point in the code that you've designated. Conventional buffer overflow attacks need to know how far to overflow in order to work, right? Same as in my example.
In my opinion upward stack allocation would prevent most buffer overflow attacks.
Most is not all. I do agree, however, that it would prevent certain kinds of overflow attacks. The best thing (and this should be old hat by now) is to use safe programming practice: always check external data, and check internal data unless you're absolutely sure it's good. Even then, you may want to check it anyway.
How exactly do you intend to overwrite the return address on the stack such that the IP will point to your new code?
You don't necessarily have to. Here's a situation to consider: a function returns the address to another function, and for whatever reason, has a buffer on the stack, and a temporary variable for the to-be-returned function location located just above that. Overflow the buffer at just the right time, and you'll make the code jump to where you want at a later time. All without ever touching the return value.
I agree with that, but they're not asking for copies from recipients. They're asking for the copy the soldier made himself (or at least the copy the system automatically made for him) a.k.a the "sent" folder. It's possible it doesn't exist - maybe the soldier deleted the "sent" folder's contents. But that seems unlikely.
I guess if it was still in the "sent" folder, then they wouldn't have to ask for it, right? Assuming they got access to the account and not just hard copies. (although I find the latter hard to believe)
Actually, a person with an IQ of 130 has a percentile rank of 96.96, i.e. in the top 3%
Huh? Wouldn't a percentile rank of 96.96 put that person just outside of the top 3%? I suppose you could argue that since the next highest rank (that for 131) is 97.37, most of those 130s would in fact be in the top 3%. You didn't mention that in your post, although perhaps you thought of it. I certainly can't read minds. (if I could, I'd quit my day job!) Most is not all, but since all 130s are basically the same, it's both ambiguous and arbitrary.
However, if you come in 10th out of 99, I posit that you cannot claim to be in the top 10%.
Are you also suggesting that any paper letters the soldier received should be destroyed?
No. But neither could the parents insist that any paper letters that the soldier sent to others be given to the them. Aside from the obvious -- the recipient may simply say no or refuse to acknowledge that such a letter even exists, or even claim that it was destroyed -- the parents wouldn't necessarily know that a particular letter was ever sent. Ditto for e-mail, if there is no copy in "Sent" or equivalent.
This seems pretty simple to me: the emails, like everything else the soldier owned is part of his estate, which is now owned by his parents. If he didn't want them to inherit his email account, he should have said so, or at least deleted any email he didn't want them to see.
Perhaps he did; probably not, though. How many have the foresight to destroy such items, electronic or otherwise? But you're right; these things are a part of his estate, and therefore now belong to his parents.
Of that subset, how many emails do you think were actually bounced or discarded versus the more common treatment of simply deferring the connection until the sender's MAPS listing is removed?
Probably the greater part of them. I recall a rather unhappy incident that I had with the spamcop RBL. My mail server was blacklisted at spamcop (and only spamcop), and messages sent to domains that were using that RBL got rejected with a 550 status code.
Now, granted, some sites may not outright reject mail coming from servers listed in an RBL. But as I found out, there are plenty that do.
First, I'll point out again that all three players must answer simultaneously. But just for a minute, let's change the rules where players can answer in succession. What then does your strategy get you? So the first person passes if she sees two red (or two blue). What if the other two hats are different? Pass? This won't give the other two any information then, since the action is to pass in either case. Or will she take a guess? Chances of success are 50/50 in that case.
Which was a good thing because they got the surveying wrong. Measuring by the practical standard they produced, one millionth of a quarter of the meridian passing through Paris was 1.0002 meters: remarkably good for surveying, remarkably bad for standards setting.
Actually, that wouldn't matter. Since the meter hadn't been defined yet, they could make it whatever length they wanted. And there's nothing to say that a pendulum that's the forty-millionth part of the circumference of the earth must have a half-period of exactly one second. It's close, but that's not my point. Pi seconds is also pretty close to a nanocentury. So did they really get the surveying wrong, or is it just that the earth is not exactly 40 million meters around? (as we chose to define it)
that will propose that all Slashdot headlines make some semblance of sense without having to read the external site to see what its talking about.
Actually, I think it would improve the quality of posts if it forced people to actually read the article so we get less 14m3n355 in the discussion areas...
Hmm... maybe I should run some of the real spam that I get through this thing. Could be interesting to see what it translates to. Probably an otherwise subliminal message like "Put in you order before we're slashdotted!"
If you want to get out of living in the dorms, the excuses that work pretty much come down to "I'm married", "My parents spent $90k for a house", or "I'm a football/basketball player".
$90k? Wow. Now that's a good deal. Either that or a small house.
I'm curious, however, if they are differences in the mirror neuron activation between a real-world event and an event watched on television. If there's a lesser mirroring effect with a two-dimensional image, that might serve to at least partially deflect the arguments against media violence that refer to mirror neurons.
I think it's the same as the difference between a normal dream and a lucid dream. The only difference is that you know it's not real. You still see and hear the same things, but when you know it's not real, you interpret it differently. So the difference is not whether it's real or not; it's whether you think it's real or not.
It's also well documented that certain mental and/or medical conditions can render a person unable to distinguish what's real and what's not. I personally know someone who honestly thought that the people talking on TV were really there in the living room! Just imagine what goes through the mind of such a person when a war movie or some other depiction of violence is on the tube.
But, the reason I searched for microsoft.com the first time was I wanted the SOA for microsoft.com, the domain. Then, once I found the authoritative nameserver for microsoft.com, I wanted the A record for www.microsoft.com, as it is certainly the most used hostname... I didn't want to check microsoft.com. Still scarred from the days when dejanews.com and www.dejanews.com weren't the same place.
That makes sense. I didn't realize the queries were intentionally different. I take back my comment about keeping the queries the same.
I agree that dns[4567].cp.msft.net are all down, but your reasoning is a bit sloppy. The "server" command switches the name server, looking up the IP address for the new server using the current nameserver. So if your current nameserver is set to dns7.cp.msft.net, then of course it's going to time out with the command "server dns6.cp.msft.net."
Use the "lserver" command to switch the current nameserver, using the initial nameserver to look up its address. Then repeat your search on microsoft.com. (and try to use the same query too, don't use "microsoft.com" the first time and "www.microsoft.com" the second time. This is just keeping the variables at a minimim) I agree with your findings, but find your approach to be a bit sloppy.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone knows the moon is made of GREEN cheese!
IIRC, this saying doesn't mean that it's green as in the color green, but green as in underripe or not matured. Did you know that blackberries are red when they're green?
I use Gaim and the problem is solved.
Not really. You're still using the service, even if you're not using the official client. And you have to have an account for each of the services you want to use (AIM, Yahoo, MSN, Jabber, etc). I for one refuse to sign up for an MSN account of any sort. Using its messaging service with or without the official client ranks only slightly lower on my not-gonna-do-it list. Then again, if that doesn't bother you, then for you, the problem is solved.
Does this mean I can meet the meat?
Only if you're in the Restaurant. (you hoopy frood you)
That's true, but such an exploit is more difficult in that it must be specifically crafted for the function being overflowed.
Unless you're shooting in the dark, buffer overflow attacks start with the knowledge that something can definitely be overflowed into. If I'm using a buffer in an unsafe way, what's the difference whether the data that you can overflow into is the return address or the address of a function that will be used later? Not much. Granted, in order for an overflow to work in the way I described, the program can't set this address after the overflow, which can make such an exploit more difficult. Still, either way, you have a way to make my program go to a point in the code that you've designated. Conventional buffer overflow attacks need to know how far to overflow in order to work, right? Same as in my example.
In my opinion upward stack allocation would prevent most buffer overflow attacks.
Most is not all. I do agree, however, that it would prevent certain kinds of overflow attacks. The best thing (and this should be old hat by now) is to use safe programming practice: always check external data, and check internal data unless you're absolutely sure it's good. Even then, you may want to check it anyway.
How exactly do you intend to overwrite the return address on the stack such that the IP will point to your new code?
You don't necessarily have to. Here's a situation to consider: a function returns the address to another function, and for whatever reason, has a buffer on the stack, and a temporary variable for the to-be-returned function location located just above that. Overflow the buffer at just the right time, and you'll make the code jump to where you want at a later time. All without ever touching the return value.
ride your bike there!
Okay, so you've replaced your car keys with a bike lock key.
Turned out the monsters in that game had stats calculated according to the players stats.
Final Fantasy VIII, by any chance?
I agree with that, but they're not asking for copies from recipients. They're asking for the copy the soldier made himself (or at least the copy the system automatically made for him) a.k.a the "sent" folder. It's possible it doesn't exist - maybe the soldier deleted the "sent" folder's contents. But that seems unlikely.
I guess if it was still in the "sent" folder, then they wouldn't have to ask for it, right? Assuming they got access to the account and not just hard copies. (although I find the latter hard to believe)
Actually, a person with an IQ of 130 has a percentile rank of 96.96, i.e. in the top 3%
Huh? Wouldn't a percentile rank of 96.96 put that person just outside of the top 3%? I suppose you could argue that since the next highest rank (that for 131) is 97.37, most of those 130s would in fact be in the top 3%. You didn't mention that in your post, although perhaps you thought of it. I certainly can't read minds. (if I could, I'd quit my day job!) Most is not all, but since all 130s are basically the same, it's both ambiguous and arbitrary.
However, if you come in 10th out of 99, I posit that you cannot claim to be in the top 10%.
IANTOP (original poster). However...
Are you also suggesting that any paper letters the soldier received should be destroyed?
No. But neither could the parents insist that any paper letters that the soldier sent to others be given to the them. Aside from the obvious -- the recipient may simply say no or refuse to acknowledge that such a letter even exists, or even claim that it was destroyed -- the parents wouldn't necessarily know that a particular letter was ever sent. Ditto for e-mail, if there is no copy in "Sent" or equivalent.
This seems pretty simple to me: the emails, like everything else the soldier owned is part of his estate, which is now owned by his parents. If he didn't want them to inherit his email account, he should have said so, or at least deleted any email he didn't want them to see.
Perhaps he did; probably not, though. How many have the foresight to destroy such items, electronic or otherwise? But you're right; these things are a part of his estate, and therefore now belong to his parents.
Good trade, if you ask me.
Of that subset, how many emails do you think were actually bounced or discarded versus the more common treatment of simply deferring the connection until the sender's MAPS listing is removed?
Probably the greater part of them. I recall a rather unhappy incident that I had with the spamcop RBL. My mail server was blacklisted at spamcop (and only spamcop), and messages sent to domains that were using that RBL got rejected with a 550 status code.
Now, granted, some sites may not outright reject mail coming from servers listed in an RBL. But as I found out, there are plenty that do.
Myself, I prefer Cole's Law. (thinly sliced cabbage)
CTRL-C, CTRL-V isn't as bad as you make it out to be.
It is if you prefer Dvorak to QWERTY.
First, I'll point out again that all three players must answer simultaneously. But just for a minute, let's change the rules where players can answer in succession. What then does your strategy get you? So the first person passes if she sees two red (or two blue). What if the other two hats are different? Pass? This won't give the other two any information then, since the action is to pass in either case. Or will she take a guess? Chances of success are 50/50 in that case.
Which was a good thing because they got the surveying wrong. Measuring by the practical standard they produced, one millionth of a quarter of the meridian passing through Paris was 1.0002 meters: remarkably good for surveying, remarkably bad for standards setting.
Actually, that wouldn't matter. Since the meter hadn't been defined yet, they could make it whatever length they wanted. And there's nothing to say that a pendulum that's the forty-millionth part of the circumference of the earth must have a half-period of exactly one second. It's close, but that's not my point. Pi seconds is also pretty close to a nanocentury. So did they really get the surveying wrong, or is it just that the earth is not exactly 40 million meters around? (as we chose to define it)
that will propose that all Slashdot headlines make some semblance of sense without having to read the external site to see what its talking about.
Actually, I think it would improve the quality of posts if it forced people to actually read the article so we get less 14m3n355 in the discussion areas...
Hmm... maybe I should run some of the real spam that I get through this thing. Could be interesting to see what it translates to. Probably an otherwise subliminal message like "Put in you order before we're slashdotted!"
If you want to get out of living in the dorms, the excuses that work pretty much come down to "I'm married", "My parents spent $90k for a house", or "I'm a football/basketball player".
$90k? Wow. Now that's a good deal. Either that or a small house.
I'm curious, however, if they are differences in the mirror neuron activation between a real-world event and an event watched on television. If there's a lesser mirroring effect with a two-dimensional image, that might serve to at least partially deflect the arguments against media violence that refer to mirror neurons.
I think it's the same as the difference between a normal dream and a lucid dream. The only difference is that you know it's not real. You still see and hear the same things, but when you know it's not real, you interpret it differently. So the difference is not whether it's real or not; it's whether you think it's real or not.
It's also well documented that certain mental and/or medical conditions can render a person unable to distinguish what's real and what's not. I personally know someone who honestly thought that the people talking on TV were really there in the living room! Just imagine what goes through the mind of such a person when a war movie or some other depiction of violence is on the tube.
Because, by reducing the amount of the drug in each cigarette, you will SMOKE MORE to achieve the same dosage.
By this line of logic, then, would you be likely to smoke less if the dosage in each cig were increased? Somehow I doubt it.
But, the reason I searched for microsoft.com the first time was I wanted the SOA for microsoft.com, the domain. Then, once I found the authoritative nameserver for microsoft.com, I wanted the A record for www.microsoft.com, as it is certainly the most used hostname... I didn't want to check microsoft.com. Still scarred from the days when dejanews.com and www.dejanews.com weren't the same place.
That makes sense. I didn't realize the queries were intentionally different. I take back my comment about keeping the queries the same.
I agree that dns[4567].cp.msft.net are all down, but your reasoning is a bit sloppy. The "server" command switches the name server, looking up the IP address for the new server using the current nameserver. So if your current nameserver is set to dns7.cp.msft.net, then of course it's going to time out with the command "server dns6.cp.msft.net."
Use the "lserver" command to switch the current nameserver, using the initial nameserver to look up its address. Then repeat your search on microsoft.com. (and try to use the same query too, don't use "microsoft.com" the first time and "www.microsoft.com" the second time. This is just keeping the variables at a minimim) I agree with your findings, but find your approach to be a bit sloppy.
CPRM = Consumers' Personal Rights (are) Meaningless.