That only works if you use SmartDefence, which (for various reasons) many sites do not want to do. They have not patched the underlying bug in VPN-1 NAT. According to Vixie (linked from the "related stories" at the top of the page) CERT are apparently working on a bulletin. I do wonder if it and the associated patches will be out before BlackHat...
I rather like In Rainbows, it's quite a lot more accessible than Kid A / Amnesiac / Hail to the Thief. (The songs from the first two make more sense on the live mini-album "I Could Be Wrong". They'll never make another OK Computer, though, just as the Manics will never make another Holy Bible.
Note as well that the initial release included a default conf file which specified a fixed source port, which of course breaks the fix.
[Updated 10th July 2008]
We have updated the Enterprise Linux 5 packages in this advisory. The
default and sample caching-nameserver configuration files have been updated
so that they do not specify a fixed query-source port. Administrators
wishing to take advantage of randomized UDP source ports should check their
configuration file to ensure they have not specified fixed query-source ports.
Personally I'm surprised there's not been more uproar about the requirement to move internal DNS servers (yes, that means your Windows Domain Controllers in most corporate environments) outside any NAT'ing devices (eg: firewalls), as many NATs also break the fix by rewriting outbound UDP DNS queries to use the same or incremental source ports, which also breaks the fixes. Anyone here moved their AD outside the firewall?
Technology spin-offs come from any ginormous engineering project; however the economics of this were jettisoned by messrs. Hayek & Friedman. Don't you think there are far more spin-offs from the much larger generic military-industrial complex budget and private sector investment? Finally, an Apollo-like crash programme to develop (say for example) cheap reliable renewable energy resources would be likely to produce much more useful technological advances.
Sure, I used Macs back in the 80s and early 90s. I'm a freetard now, though. What I meant by the question was, if you use the thing because of the UI, you can't very well complain when the control freak hardware thing bites you on the ass. It's not a la carte... you get what Steve gives you, like it or buy something else. Like me:)
It's got a lot more to do with 40 year old paper blueprints and supporting engineering calculations, specs, test results etc being hard to find, especially when three-quarters of the contractors that built it have been bought, merged, or gone bust, and that today's aerospace engineers were still shitting in their hands and rubbing it in their hair when those guys were taking shrapnel at Khe Sahn, uh, I mean designing the Saturn launcher (and then redesigning it, when it was finally obvious to the PHBs that the engineers had been right in the first place when they said the original design wasn't powerful enough.)
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha... no. Wrong. Fail. SpaceX may well be able to build a small, efficient and reliable launcher (some of us think they're going to find there's a big difference between static test firings, which have been very successful thus far, and what happens once the metal leaves the pad; that remains to be seen.) Assuming I'm wrong though, they've got a nice little low-end satellite launcher (for which there is a thriving world market.) That's a long way from a manned launcher, transfer, lander, ascent, transfer, re-entry and landing ensemble, for which there is a very small and unreliable market.
Nonsense. The vast majority of people really want to see some cool pictures on the news every couple of years or so. If you substitute to 10c per person (or whatever the current budget works out to) with half a dozen multi-millionaires and a long (actually, short) tail of "enthusiast" types chipping in $50 or $20, you won't have enough for a single Delta launch, let alone fund design testing build and operation of two and a half new launchers, a new crew vehicle and the TLI / lander / ascent hardware needed for another moon landing.
I personally am of the opinion the moon landings will be jettisoned as soon as practical, and that that's a good thing. I just hope it's early enough to leave enough left for the increasingly delayed outer planets flagship mission and some more Mars landers / rovers, oh and a telecoms relay orbiter that will be desperately needed in 7-10 years' time. (Did you know there's nothing on the Mars launch schedule after MSL in 2010? That money's gone to Dubya's cock-eyed publicity stunt of trying to get Kennedy's rep by announcing another manned moon landing. But I realise that's unpopular around here.
This is pure flame by the way, I won't feel bad about being mod'd to oblivion here;)
"...world changing responsibility..."
Pardon a stupid question, but exactly how does selling a shitload of computers, mp3 players and now some cellphones discharge a responsibility to change the world? The only responsibility it's discharged is to make Apple stockholders a good return on their investment, and a few old white men very rich. Woohoo, all power to the soviets, long live the revolution... christ, I feel sick. Fuck Jobs, fuck Apple, and fuck every one of you who buy his "lickable" products. All you're licking is Jobs' turtleneck.
Mate, if you think humans are going back to the moon in Ares or anything else within the next three decades, there's a bridge I'd like you to take a look at. Yes, I know there are plans, but do you really think that ginormous chunk of NASA budget will survive the economy of the next five years? Get real. It's not gonna happen. The only question is how much money they spend before it's cancelled.
Dang. You're right. I went off and read the whole Nixon article and dammit, Bush II is worse than he was. Much worse. Nixon was just a grubby little crook (albeit a very clever one.) Dubya's dumb as the proverbial sack of spanners, but all his instincts are to pick the more evil of any two tactics.
Oh l0rd, and he's still got five months to "secure his legacy", whilst in the traditional lame-duck foreign-policy-only stage of his regi^h^h administration.
Look at insurgents in Iraq...they are making a mess of our 'moder military'.
You'll note how these insurgent tactics have not yet "won", for any strategic value of the term anyway; the country's not become a terrorist safe-haven, it's not yet an Iranian client or puppet regime (not yet, anyway) and despite the ethnic segregation that's going on, it's not yet formally partitioned - and it's still occupied by the US. (OK, yes, Kurdistan, point taken - but they're on "our side".)
Actually it's been interesting to watch the US military learning the lessons the Brits learned in Northern Ireland - how to pull support away from that insurgency, how to do peacekeeping operations in urban environments against a well motivated and reasonably well-resourced guerilla or insurgent enemy indistinguishable from the local civilian population, even whilst a safe exit strategy looks a long way off. (There are big differences too, of course, eg. Iraq's a long way from the USA whilst Ulster is very close to Britain.)
Well gosh darn what a fool I am; of course! It's all so clear to me now. The National Guard's automatic weapons, artillery and F16s don't fire actual live rounds, no, those are powder-puffs and sherbet dabs in there.
If you'd bothered to read my post you'd have noticed that I was positing a mass armed civil insurrection seeking to overthrow the state, and noting how incredibly unlikely such a thing would be. If something so unlikely ever DID actually happen, how long d'you think it'd take the then executive branch to press whatever big red button it took to get the "real" military onside?
Finally, for something the military couldn't have been involved in, there sure were a lot of dead and maimed people, and smoking wreckage, around about 1865.
the reason why Obama is very likely to lose in November - he isn't perfect
Dude, if the last eight years have proved anything, it's that you don't need to be perfect to get to be President (or even to stay that way after four years of mind-blowing mingling of stupidity, incompetence and downright evilitude.) When the Supremes finally anointed Dubya, a lost a lot of faith in America. In November 2004 I really gave up all hope. Maybe Obama or even McCain won't be the one who finally fucks it up all irrevocably, but it's inevitable sooner or later. There's nothing to stop someone who gets the marketing right and the right cronies and interest groups on board. Nothing.
The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.
And that, ladies gentlemen and geek masses, is just one reason why the "...to overthrow the government if they turn into a tyranny!" argument in support of the 2nd Amendment is baloney. Try it and see whether the general public see you as a terrorist or a patriot. Have you planned what you'd like for your last meal? (Oh yeah, and even if you DID somehow manage to raise a large, angry mob of enraged disenchanted ex-mainstreamers, how well d'you think you'd do against a modern military? Hmmmm, I suppose if the numbers were that great there'd be a split in the military as well as the general public. Sounds like a good recipe for some dystopian near-term future fiction to me!)
(Note -- I'm not saying there are no other arguments in favour of the 2nd amendment, just that that one, which was the original intent of the framers, doesn't wash any more.)
I've a hypothesis that I'm trying to bat away by reminding myself how what tin-foil-hattery is sounds like. I was wondering: why would so many states around the world be putting so many laws on the books that allow for swift establishment of a fully authoritarian (undemocratic) state control? Well, what would they do if medium-range forecasts stroingly suggested major socio-economic upheavals of the sort that might be expected to lead to widespread civil unrest? They might start putting these sort of measures in place ahead of time. Say for example the idea of runaway global warming causing global crisis with crop yields plummeting, energy costs going through the roof (no more oil-based economy, nothing to replace it with), hundreds of millions of deaths? Yeah, so far-fetched it's crazy, I know, but Hansen really ISN'T a swivel-eyed nutter, whatever the Register would like you to believe, and he IS the head of a large NASA lab. And he's been writing papers using words like "unprecedented in recorded history" and "catastrophic".
Now I've always rejected the people who've asserted that all these terrible laws are the result of a big conspiracy, because Occam's Razor would suggest incompetence rather than maliciousness. And many of those people display, uh, non-standard deductive techniques (basically "here's a heap of anecdotal evidence and paranoia! ph33r!" But as time goes on I'm getting less and less sanguine about where we'll be in two or three decades' time.
(Oy! Taco! Why aren't P and BR tags working any more?)
Slashdot Mirror
That only works if you use SmartDefence, which (for various reasons) many sites do not want to do. They have not patched the underlying bug in VPN-1 NAT. According to Vixie (linked from the "related stories" at the top of the page) CERT are apparently working on a bulletin. I do wonder if it and the associated patches will be out before BlackHat...
I rather like In Rainbows, it's quite a lot more accessible than Kid A / Amnesiac / Hail to the Thief. (The songs from the first two make more sense on the live mini-album "I Could Be Wrong". They'll never make another OK Computer, though, just as the Manics will never make another Holy Bible.
You think there'll still be people around in 10,000 years? That's mighty optimistic.
Why not a huge granite sculture of a human skull with thee eye sockets?
Note as well that the initial release included a default conf file which specified a fixed source port, which of course breaks the fix.
[Updated 10th July 2008] We have updated the Enterprise Linux 5 packages in this advisory. The default and sample caching-nameserver configuration files have been updated so that they do not specify a fixed query-source port. Administrators wishing to take advantage of randomized UDP source ports should check their configuration file to ensure they have not specified fixed query-source ports.
Personally I'm surprised there's not been more uproar about the requirement to move internal DNS servers (yes, that means your Windows Domain Controllers in most corporate environments) outside any NAT'ing devices (eg: firewalls), as many NATs also break the fix by rewriting outbound UDP DNS queries to use the same or incremental source ports, which also breaks the fixes. Anyone here moved their AD outside the firewall?
Technology spin-offs come from any ginormous engineering project; however the economics of this were jettisoned by messrs. Hayek & Friedman. Don't you think there are far more spin-offs from the much larger generic military-industrial complex budget and private sector investment? Finally, an Apollo-like crash programme to develop (say for example) cheap reliable renewable energy resources would be likely to produce much more useful technological advances.
Sure, I used Macs back in the 80s and early 90s. I'm a freetard now, though. What I meant by the question was, if you use the thing because of the UI, you can't very well complain when the control freak hardware thing bites you on the ass. It's not a la carte... you get what Steve gives you, like it or buy something else. Like me :)
It's got a lot more to do with 40 year old paper blueprints and supporting engineering calculations, specs, test results etc being hard to find, especially when three-quarters of the contractors that built it have been bought, merged, or gone bust, and that today's aerospace engineers were still shitting in their hands and rubbing it in their hair when those guys were taking shrapnel at Khe Sahn, uh, I mean designing the Saturn launcher (and then redesigning it, when it was finally obvious to the PHBs that the engineers had been right in the first place when they said the original design wasn't powerful enough.)
There are alternatives.
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha... no. Wrong. Fail. SpaceX may well be able to build a small, efficient and reliable launcher (some of us think they're going to find there's a big difference between static test firings, which have been very successful thus far, and what happens once the metal leaves the pad; that remains to be seen.) Assuming I'm wrong though, they've got a nice little low-end satellite launcher (for which there is a thriving world market.) That's a long way from a manned launcher, transfer, lander, ascent, transfer, re-entry and landing ensemble, for which there is a very small and unreliable market.
Nonsense. The vast majority of people really want to see some cool pictures on the news every couple of years or so. If you substitute to 10c per person (or whatever the current budget works out to) with half a dozen multi-millionaires and a long (actually, short) tail of "enthusiast" types chipping in $50 or $20, you won't have enough for a single Delta launch, let alone fund design testing build and operation of two and a half new launchers, a new crew vehicle and the TLI / lander / ascent hardware needed for another moon landing.
I personally am of the opinion the moon landings will be jettisoned as soon as practical, and that that's a good thing. I just hope it's early enough to leave enough left for the increasingly delayed outer planets flagship mission and some more Mars landers / rovers, oh and a telecoms relay orbiter that will be desperately needed in 7-10 years' time. (Did you know there's nothing on the Mars launch schedule after MSL in 2010? That money's gone to Dubya's cock-eyed publicity stunt of trying to get Kennedy's rep by announcing another manned moon landing. But I realise that's unpopular around here.
sounds familiar...
...you own a Mac why?
This is pure flame by the way, I won't feel bad about being mod'd to oblivion here ;)
"...world changing responsibility..."
Pardon a stupid question, but exactly how does selling a shitload of computers, mp3 players and now some cellphones discharge a responsibility to change the world? The only responsibility it's discharged is to make Apple stockholders a good return on their investment, and a few old white men very rich. Woohoo, all power to the soviets, long live the revolution... christ, I feel sick. Fuck Jobs, fuck Apple, and fuck every one of you who buy his "lickable" products. All you're licking is Jobs' turtleneck.
if you carefully make them (Nasa has) and engineer the launch system to take into account the thing won't turn off (Nasa has),
I've always thought that a much more unpleasant failure mode is if one fails to turn ON. Can't see that being survivable.
Mate, if you think humans are going back to the moon in Ares or anything else within the next three decades, there's a bridge I'd like you to take a look at. Yes, I know there are plans, but do you really think that ginormous chunk of NASA budget will survive the economy of the next five years? Get real. It's not gonna happen. The only question is how much money they spend before it's cancelled.
Not your fault (unless you're from Wiltshire) but I think you'll find that's spelled "Stone'enge".
Dang. You're right. I went off and read the whole Nixon article and dammit, Bush II is worse than he was. Much worse. Nixon was just a grubby little crook (albeit a very clever one.) Dubya's dumb as the proverbial sack of spanners, but all his instincts are to pick the more evil of any two tactics.
Oh l0rd, and he's still got five months to "secure his legacy", whilst in the traditional lame-duck foreign-policy-only stage of his regi^h^h administration.
What a depressing thought that is :(
Go back and read my comment again; you didn't understand it.
Look at insurgents in Iraq...they are making a mess of our 'moder military'.
You'll note how these insurgent tactics have not yet "won", for any strategic value of the term anyway; the country's not become a terrorist safe-haven, it's not yet an Iranian client or puppet regime (not yet, anyway) and despite the ethnic segregation that's going on, it's not yet formally partitioned - and it's still occupied by the US. (OK, yes, Kurdistan, point taken - but they're on "our side".)
Actually it's been interesting to watch the US military learning the lessons the Brits learned in Northern Ireland - how to pull support away from that insurgency, how to do peacekeeping operations in urban environments against a well motivated and reasonably well-resourced guerilla or insurgent enemy indistinguishable from the local civilian population, even whilst a safe exit strategy looks a long way off. (There are big differences too, of course, eg. Iraq's a long way from the USA whilst Ulster is very close to Britain.)
Well gosh darn what a fool I am; of course! It's all so clear to me now. The National Guard's automatic weapons, artillery and F16s don't fire actual live rounds, no, those are powder-puffs and sherbet dabs in there.
If you'd bothered to read my post you'd have noticed that I was positing a mass armed civil insurrection seeking to overthrow the state, and noting how incredibly unlikely such a thing would be. If something so unlikely ever DID actually happen, how long d'you think it'd take the then executive branch to press whatever big red button it took to get the "real" military onside?
Finally, for something the military couldn't have been involved in, there sure were a lot of dead and maimed people, and smoking wreckage, around about 1865.
...dumbass.
Memories are short round here...
You do know which countries are members of the cabal that runs ECHELON, right? You realise it's not just "the USA and it's colony, the UK"?
the reason why Obama is very likely to lose in November - he isn't perfect
Dude, if the last eight years have proved anything, it's that you don't need to be perfect to get to be President (or even to stay that way after four years of mind-blowing mingling of stupidity, incompetence and downright evilitude.) When the Supremes finally anointed Dubya, a lost a lot of faith in America. In November 2004 I really gave up all hope. Maybe Obama or even McCain won't be the one who finally fucks it up all irrevocably, but it's inevitable sooner or later. There's nothing to stop someone who gets the marketing right and the right cronies and interest groups on board. Nothing.
The only option at this point is to begin militant action against our failed government institution. Unfortunately we would have no backing because the TV still spews its garbage and the people are sated.
And that, ladies gentlemen and geek masses, is just one reason why the "...to overthrow the government if they turn into a tyranny!" argument in support of the 2nd Amendment is baloney. Try it and see whether the general public see you as a terrorist or a patriot. Have you planned what you'd like for your last meal? (Oh yeah, and even if you DID somehow manage to raise a large, angry mob of enraged disenchanted ex-mainstreamers, how well d'you think you'd do against a modern military? Hmmmm, I suppose if the numbers were that great there'd be a split in the military as well as the general public. Sounds like a good recipe for some dystopian near-term future fiction to me!) (Note -- I'm not saying there are no other arguments in favour of the 2nd amendment, just that that one, which was the original intent of the framers, doesn't wash any more.)
Now I've always rejected the people who've asserted that all these terrible laws are the result of a big conspiracy, because Occam's Razor would suggest incompetence rather than maliciousness. And many of those people display, uh, non-standard deductive techniques (basically "here's a heap of anecdotal evidence and paranoia! ph33r!" But as time goes on I'm getting less and less sanguine about where we'll be in two or three decades' time.
(Oy! Taco! Why aren't P and BR tags working any more?)