so his box is one of the first infected by Code Red, and one of the last cleaned.
Absolutely - I notice the absence of a virus-scanner of any sort being installed.
Not expensive to do these days, in fact LinuxJournal ran an article on a DIY SMTP virus scanner a few months back IIRC, and I'm sure that could be applied to HTTP etc etc...
OK, So we put a suitcase into one of these things at an airport, et VIOLA!...
... a hologram of a suitcase! Methinks this one will need work before it replaces the good ol' Airport Xray machine.
Of course quantum entanglement is also how "they" propose to achieve the matter-transporter, so forget looking inside the luggage, we can just send it on ahead:-)
An American friend one pointed out to me that the USA has the benefit of inventing many new technologies, and being the first to implement a massive number of them...
...This of course means that the USA tends to implement version 1.0 all across the country, and when you've covered an area that big with version 1.0, version 2.0 is gonna be a long time coming;)
...on the other, why are they arguing the point now?
This case should have been argued before they signed their employment contract, just like the rest of us would if we thought that the IP clauses in our employment contracts were inappropriate.
The horse has bolted, the blood is signed on the paper. Learn from this mistake, and perhaps help others. Otherwise, hire a lawyer and waste a load of money why don't you?
In the UK, we have two commercial-free channels (BBC1 and BBC2) - These are paid for through a "TV licence", payable by anyone who owns a TV and receives broadcasts on it (burden of proof is on you if you do not receive any signals) Even broadcasts of non-BBC channels is included.
This license costs approx. £120 (GBP, ~$180) per year, and a massive infrastructure exists to prevent avoidance - Detector vans, databases etc... Last I heard public opinion was split about 50/50 as to whether to replace the license with advertising on these two channels, and therefore lose the massive cost of operating this infrastructure into the bargain.
Does the US really want to exchange their currently simple television infrastructure for one small "fast-forward advert" button? Surely you are not so lazy that you can't use an ordinary Fast-forward button, and let-go at the end of the adverts (TIVO style) ???
... the video released by AMD that showed no overheating problems? I didn't spend the time/bandwidth downloading it, but IIRC the claim was that it showed Quake3 running even after the heatsink was removed.
This is contradictory to the claim that AMD's fix is to close-down the motherboard.
The Tom's Hardware Article, although it was informative as TH articles usually are, made no comment on this video. Does it exist? What did it really show?
It would be an even better thing if the HTML standard
a) Stood still for a while
b) Kept browser compatibility in mind
c) Didn't just base itself on the latest non-standard toy added by MS or NS
d) Wasn't developed by Committee
(Committee == A mammal with an average of 100 legs, and no brain)
OK, time for my tablets... The real-world is calling me back;-)
I think this is a real shame, and is probably originated by some badly informed member of Thawte-management.
How do they plan on catering for the self-employed? What about small companies where the corporate and technical contacts are the same person? Why should an individual have any less right to certifying their code than a corporate?
Of course it is up to Thawte who they sell their product to, but given the mind-set of people they are selling to (technical staff), this is not going to do them any favours.
Generally Thawte are very forward thinking... Their "Web of Trust" model brings free X.509 email certificates to the masses by using a PGP-like trust model (extended through face-to-face authentication) on top of the CA signing model.
There is a database up at http://www.srcdst.com where offers of technical help, space and equipment can be registered. This one is really intended to keep the Internet running around all of the problems its now seeing with power etc, but its all part of the same effort.
which means that XML is more like HTML's younger brother, or a cousin
I hope they are cousins and not brothers, because they have been married fairly well in Whitebeam. As it happens, the marriage is a polygamous one, as it includes Apache and JavaScript (SpiderMonkey) too...
<ob:disclaimer>Yes I'm involved on the Whitebeam project</ob:disclaimer>
Amongst the posts in this article I have seen a large degree of confusion.
HP have released a DVD+RW writer device, this writes DVDs. It is not just a DVD reader which writes CD-R or CD-RW.
I assume that this device can also write CD-R and CD-RW, but it is more than that, hence the higher price tag.
...that broadband is not necessarily much faster than a modem! NTL in the UK offer a cheap GBP 6/mth ($10/mth) "Broadband" service capped at 64K over a cablemodem.
Now you'd be hard pressed to call that BROADband, but the technology is the same.
We are discussing 3 different beasts in this thread. Unix, Linux and AIX. While they have an enormous number of similarities, they are different. I learned AIX many moons ago, and am much out of date (Version 3.2.5 was the last I used) but I remember being very impressed by a really simple idea that IBM incorporated into AIX that all other *nix'es could benefit from.
They implemented "CRUD" (Create, read, update, delete) as deeply as possible in all of the OS commands.
This means that they took the prefixes "mk", "ls", "ch" and "rm" and prefixed almost everything with them. Hey presto, one unified (sort-of) command set.
They also looked at cron, lp, at and realised that they had two schedulers with differing capabilities and merged them into a superset "qdaemon".
Now, IBM are not totally silly - They maintained all of the usual compatibilty commands, and also realise that you cannot unify commands like "grep" but...
...is Linux brave enough to embrace this sort of shift? Is the community open to having bounds placed on their creativity in order to maintain an environment suitable for corporates? Or are we just going to end up with GNU/Linux, Linux and IBM/Linux ???
1) The muckups that NS 6 and NS 6.01 made of the Mozilla image won't be there anymore.
2) IIRC, the NS development staff have already all but pulled out of Mozilla development.
3) The latest Mozilla builds are starting to *SHINE* and that alone will give it momentum.
4) Neither Konq or Opera have the same level of DOM and JavaScript support as NS or IE (Sure, nearly, but not quite)
I actually use Opera 5.0 for Linux for most things, but still use Mozilla a lot of the time because some sites require either IE or Netscape, and Mozilla is close enough to Netscape to be acceptable to these people.
I'd like to see a more level playing field in future, with Konqueror, Opera, Mozilla and IE all keeping eachother in check. Without a reasonable number of players, IE will just walk all over the idea of standards based browsers. --
If the eavesdropper, for example, had a secret way to decode the message saying "start" and it took a minute to do the calculation needed to decode it...
More specifically, this is assuming that the eavesdropper is at a disadvantage. You cannot assume that an eavesdropper will take 1 minute to decode a start message if the real recipient is not doing to take a minute themselves. In fact, man-in-the middle attacks could a) catch the start message, and therefore decode the stream, and b) send his own start message etc etc... There is nothing in the article describing how this system will be implemented in any useful way.
...and on a general note, if my understanding of the technique described is correct, then the method will allow only realtime encoded transmission, not encryption, storage, and later decryption. While this is all very nice, it leaves you in a position that both the source and destination must store the message in cleartext, or in a "traditionally" encrypted form. So we have 2 ways to break the "unbreakable" system already:-) --
If I remember correctly, one of the touted benefits of Gnutella, (but not Napster?) was that the transfer was (or could be) anonymous.
I'm not sure how important this is, but will the described "flat" structure of this system allow both source and destination to choose anonymity (assuming both ends agree to it) - If so, how can the end requesting anonymity guarantee that they really can't be traced?
Or perhaps this is just the imaginings of a madman? --
Slashdot Mirror
...is when even viruses don't send you mail :-(
;-)
Steve
I suggest he excercises his copyright on the code he has written until they change their minds...
so his box is one of the first infected by Code Red, and one of the last cleaned.
Absolutely - I notice the absence of a virus-scanner of any sort being installed.
Not expensive to do these days, in fact LinuxJournal ran an article on a DIY SMTP virus scanner a few months back IIRC, and I'm sure that could be applied to HTTP etc etc...
...search of hidden messages in USENET images...
:)
... for downloading alt.binaries.pictures.erotica
I saw Independence Day - I know just how easily "they" can upload a virus to an orbital device :-)
Moon rotates around Earth, zapping microwaves at the surface...
:)
***PING!***
6 Billion cooked people - Heated from the inside
OK, So we put a suitcase into one of these things at an airport, et VIOLA!...
:-)
... a hologram of a suitcase! Methinks this one will need work before it replaces the good ol' Airport Xray machine.
Of course quantum entanglement is also how "they" propose to achieve the matter-transporter, so forget looking inside the luggage, we can just send it on ahead
Remember standardise early, but not too early.
;)
An American friend one pointed out to me that the USA has the benefit of inventing many new technologies, and being the first to implement a massive number of them...
...This of course means that the USA tends to implement version 1.0 all across the country, and when you've covered an area that big with version 1.0, version 2.0 is gonna be a long time coming
Steve
IANAL, but AFAIK, they can only lay claim to your IP (I assume you can prove it is yours) if you have signed it over to them.
Why else would employers go to such trouble to make that clear in employment contracts???
On one hand I agree with your sentiment...
...on the other, why are they arguing the point now?
This case should have been argued before they signed their employment contract, just like the rest of us would if we thought that the IP clauses in our employment contracts were inappropriate.
The horse has bolted, the blood is signed on the paper. Learn from this mistake, and perhaps help others. Otherwise, hire a lawyer and waste a load of money why don't you?
In the UK, we have two commercial-free channels (BBC1 and BBC2) - These are paid for through a "TV licence", payable by anyone who owns a TV and receives broadcasts on it (burden of proof is on you if you do not receive any signals) Even broadcasts of non-BBC channels is included.
This license costs approx. £120 (GBP, ~$180) per year, and a massive infrastructure exists to prevent avoidance - Detector vans, databases etc... Last I heard public opinion was split about 50/50 as to whether to replace the license with advertising on these two channels, and therefore lose the massive cost of operating this infrastructure into the bargain.
Does the US really want to exchange their currently simple television infrastructure for one small "fast-forward advert" button? Surely you are not so lazy that you can't use an ordinary Fast-forward button, and let-go at the end of the adverts (TIVO style) ???
... the video released by AMD that showed no overheating problems? I didn't spend the time/bandwidth downloading it, but IIRC the claim was that it showed Quake3 running even after the heatsink was removed.
This is contradictory to the claim that AMD's fix is to close-down the motherboard.
The Tom's Hardware Article, although it was informative as TH articles usually are, made no comment on this video. Does it exist? What did it really show?
It would be an even better thing if the HTML standard
;-)
a) Stood still for a while
b) Kept browser compatibility in mind
c) Didn't just base itself on the latest non-standard toy added by MS or NS
d) Wasn't developed by Committee
(Committee == A mammal with an average of 100 legs, and no brain)
OK, time for my tablets... The real-world is calling me back
I think this is a real shame, and is probably originated by some badly informed member of Thawte-management.
How do they plan on catering for the self-employed? What about small companies where the corporate and technical contacts are the same person? Why should an individual have any less right to certifying their code than a corporate?
Of course it is up to Thawte who they sell their product to, but given the mind-set of people they are selling to (technical staff), this is not going to do them any favours.
Generally Thawte are very forward thinking... Their "Web of Trust" model brings free X.509 email certificates to the masses by using a PGP-like trust model (extended through face-to-face authentication) on top of the CA signing model.
Ahhh... What I wouldn't give for the chance to donate those spare 4.3GHz worth of clock cycles to SETI ;-)
but the truth is that monolithic software is not the future
Of course you will note that Linux is a monolithic Kernel, and MS uses a microkernel... (Erm.. at least I think so...)
;-)
There is a database up at http://www.srcdst.com where offers of technical help, space and equipment can be registered. This one is really intended to keep the Internet running around all of the problems its now seeing with power etc, but its all part of the same effort.
which means that XML is more like HTML's younger brother, or a cousin
I hope they are cousins and not brothers, because they have been married fairly well in Whitebeam. As it happens, the marriage is a polygamous one, as it includes Apache and JavaScript (SpiderMonkey) too...
<ob:disclaimer>Yes I'm involved on the Whitebeam project</ob:disclaimer>
Amongst the posts in this article I have seen a large degree of confusion.
HP have released a DVD+RW writer device, this writes DVDs. It is not just a DVD reader which writes CD-R or CD-RW. I assume that this device can also write CD-R and CD-RW, but it is more than that, hence the higher price tag.
...that broadband is not necessarily much faster than a modem! NTL in the UK offer a cheap GBP 6/mth ($10/mth) "Broadband" service capped at 64K over a cablemodem.
Now you'd be hard pressed to call that BROADband, but the technology is the same.
We are discussing 3 different beasts in this thread. Unix, Linux and AIX. While they have an enormous number of similarities, they are different. I learned AIX many moons ago, and am much out of date (Version 3.2.5 was the last I used) but I remember being very impressed by a really simple idea that IBM incorporated into AIX that all other *nix'es could benefit from.
They implemented "CRUD" (Create, read, update, delete) as deeply as possible in all of the OS commands. This means that they took the prefixes "mk", "ls", "ch" and "rm" and prefixed almost everything with them. Hey presto, one unified (sort-of) command set.
They also looked at cron, lp, at and realised that they had two schedulers with differing capabilities and merged them into a superset "qdaemon".
Now, IBM are not totally silly - They maintained all of the usual compatibilty commands, and also realise that you cannot unify commands like "grep" but...
...is Linux brave enough to embrace this sort of shift? Is the community open to having bounds placed on their creativity in order to maintain an environment suitable for corporates? Or are we just going to end up with GNU/Linux, Linux and IBM/Linux ???
I believe Mozilla stands a pretty good chance:
1) The muckups that NS 6 and NS 6.01 made of the Mozilla image won't be there anymore.
2) IIRC, the NS development staff have already all but pulled out of Mozilla development.
3) The latest Mozilla builds are starting to *SHINE* and that alone will give it momentum.
4) Neither Konq or Opera have the same level of DOM and JavaScript support as NS or IE (Sure, nearly, but not quite)
I actually use Opera 5.0 for Linux for most things, but still use Mozilla a lot of the time because some sites require either IE or Netscape, and Mozilla is close enough to Netscape to be acceptable to these people.
I'd like to see a more level playing field in future, with Konqueror, Opera, Mozilla and IE all keeping eachother in check. Without a reasonable number of players, IE will just walk all over the idea of standards based browsers.
--
So the MPAA want to "close down" DeCSS because they believe is allows copying of copyright materials.
The RIAA to close down Napster because they think it promotes copying of copyright materials.
So why the hell don't they both gang up and close down Xerox - They've DEFINITELY allowed people to copy copyright material for YEARS!!!
:-)
--
If the eavesdropper, for example, had a secret way to decode the message saying "start" and it took a minute to do the calculation needed to decode it...
:-)
More specifically, this is assuming that the eavesdropper is at a disadvantage. You cannot assume that an eavesdropper will take 1 minute to decode a start message if the real recipient is not doing to take a minute themselves. In fact, man-in-the middle attacks could a) catch the start message, and therefore decode the stream, and b) send his own start message etc etc... There is nothing in the article describing how this system will be implemented in any useful way.
...and on a general note, if my understanding of the technique described is correct, then the method will allow only realtime encoded transmission, not encryption, storage, and later decryption. While this is all very nice, it leaves you in a position that both the source and destination must store the message in cleartext, or in a "traditionally" encrypted form. So we have 2 ways to break the "unbreakable" system already
--
If I remember correctly, one of the touted benefits of Gnutella, (but not Napster?) was that the transfer was (or could be) anonymous.
I'm not sure how important this is, but will the described "flat" structure of this system allow both source and destination to choose anonymity (assuming both ends agree to it) - If so, how can the end requesting anonymity guarantee that they really can't be traced?
Or perhaps this is just the imaginings of a madman?
--