Any modern Linux distribution worth its salt (pardon the pun) uses at least an MD5-based salted password storage system.
And doesn't that modern Linux distribution conveniently store those salt entries as the 8 characters following the $1$ characters in the/etc/shadow file (or more conveniently in/etc/passwd)?
I remember some obnoxious sites like CNN and other sites that used to open unannounced windows like 4 or 5 years ago, but I thought nobody used them anymore./me scratches head, and remembers the "bad times"
AFAIK, for years all *NIX-like systems put their hashes in a root-only readable file (/etc/shadow), and its a prerequisite to either hack root or exploit some rare and obscure local exploit that may dump the contents of the shadow file (core dumps, or whatever).
Now, as far as I am concerned. Any system that has been root compromised, then all user accounts are assumed to be compromised as well. Instead of only wasting time trying to brute force passwords now that you can access the shadow file, you can add a new account for yourself, modify an existing account with the 'passwd' command, trojan an existing binary (not very useful since most everybody checks their system binaries, right???), or do whatever people do when they root a box (usually something really evil like install an IRC bot).
I've never understood fascination around password security, when they are probably the least exploited weakness in computers since WOMPR was broken into with the 'joshua' password.
I've used passphrase protected ssh keys instead of passwords for years. If I had more informed users I would not even allow passworded access via ssh, but that would probably cause me more headaches than its worth. Also, on a side note, does anybody know why the ssh daemon cannot tell if a public key access to the system has been protected with a passphrase? I understand why there are passphraseless keys, but it should be known to the daemon and possible to reject non-protected public keys.
I have never seen google used that effectively before, and I'm guessing your biased like I am against Bush, but those searches are just putting the key words from those questions with "Bush" thrown in also.
Go read a DSM (the bible for psychological and psychiatric problems). Many people find at least a half of a dozen things wrong with themselves and others. However, its the degree and impairment that is important.
Is he glib and superficially charming? - Is he a people-person?
Psychopaths are commonly "cutesy". Don't take things seriously. Mostly because they don't give a shit about other people, and this helps them "blend in".
Does he have a grandiose sense of self-worth? - Does he add value to the company?
There is more than this. There are many people that have value to many companies that are not grandiose about it. Actually, I've never heard this as a trait for a psychopath. It doesn't make much sense to me.
Is he a pathological liar? - Does he keep the investors informed
Psychopaths lie whenever they feel like it. So do many other people.
Is he a con artist or master manipulator? - Does he attract new business?
There is a difference here. Attracting new business implies that he is doing something for someone else, a con artist or master manipulator is doing something to serve themselves. A classic symptom.
When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt? - Does he have what it takes to thrive in a competitive enviroment?
This is critical. Everybody makes mistakes and sometimes other people are affected by those mistakes, and its "normal" for people to feel worse when someone else is involved than just themselves. A psychopath simply does not feel empathy or care about other people at all. The interesting thing is how difficult it is for people to notice. I lived with a psychopath for one summer, and I didn't realize he was a psychopath until a few years later.
Does he have a shallow affect? - Does he let his emotions control his business decisions?
Not sure here.
Is he callous and lacking in empathy? - Is he able to place the interests of the company first?
Wrong again. A psychopath is self serving, he does not care about the company or anybody.
Does he fail to accept responsibility for his own actions? - My personal favorite - Is he able to look at the 'Big Picture'
No. A psychopath never takes blame or responsibility for anything. They avoid the subject, act cute, lie, blame others, say "so what?" etc. This too is a critical feature of a psychopath.
there is very little else that can serve as a deterrent.
Let me think...
Beheading. Public humiliation (stockades, or something similar). A tattoo on the forehead. Deportation. Loss of driver's license. An intense chemical or physical sensory overload such as being confined with a horrible smell or intense low frequency sound that is nauseating. Flogging.
No, I'm not a sadist, but I did come up with all of these off the top of my head.
Jail and prison are the adult version of being sent to your room when you were a child. The unfortunate thing is that unlike when you were a child, there are others with you.
Actually, besides beheading and the intense sensory thing, all of the other techniques are used in raising children all the time. I don't understand the insistence on incarceration for any legal infraction. Especially when one looks at the data and realizes that it does little to modify the behavior of the person.
OTOH, theories like the falling velocity of an object being related to its mass (excluding the effects of air friction) are discarded, because there never was evidence to support them.
Actually, over 15 years ago, I read where in a vacuum lighter objects fall faster than heavier ones. I don't remember the details, and haven't heard anything about it since, but it was an interesting read.
Does anybody actually know the charge he was convicted of? I looked at the article and it mentioned pleas and taking "stolen property" across state lines, and CAN-SPAM, but none of these were clear as to what he was actually convicted of.
All stock is speculation. Actually, money is too. Ever hear of people one day finding out their money is "worthless" and wallpaper their house with it?
Those "domain park" sites are often up in the google search hits, and they are useless when I accidentally click on one of them. I've learned how to visually filter them out now.
If that is really a good source of income for google, I would assume that this is only as temporary as the "put it on the web and make millions" that happened in the late 90's and early 00's.
Sure people may click though them now, but I don't see this lasting.
Newton's 3 laws survived 239 years, I wonder how long Einstein's will last?
Einstein's _theories_ will last until evidence no longer supports them (just like all science).
Newton's _laws_ were and still are wrongly named.
And another pedantic relativity thing. The E=MC^2 was part of the _Special_ Theory of Relativity which says that measurements of time and distance vary as anything moves relative to anything else. This is where the twins where one goes in a rocket near the speed of light and the rocket twin comes back still young and the stationary twin is old (I really hope I didn't embarrass myself by reversing this, but I think this is right).
The other theory of Relativity that Einstein came up with was the _General_ Theory of Relativity that came out in 1915. This is the space-time continuum being bent by gravity.
Einstein was a little upset that he was able to join the two theories into one, but then again that is the goal of many physicists today.
Einstein was a very interesting and good person from everything I have heard and read. RIP.
People who hate Windows write worms and viruses designed to discredit the operating system and cause mass chaos.
I've never heard of people writing worms motivated by hate. I thought it was a childish king of the hill kind of thing. If someone hates a software product that much to write and execute a worm worldwide, I'm sure these same people hate other things too, and their targets would do more specific damage than they do now. I could be wrong, I've never experienced a worm on the computers I've used or administered in over 10 years (yes, I dual booted back then).
People who hate Microsoft pirate Windows (see the first reply to this article) or refuse to authenticated it in an effort to defy the M$ empire and therefore cannot utilize the patches designed to keep their system safe from other Microsoft haters.
Those people are weird. I never go out of my way to use something I hate.
So now honest companines and hard working individuals must spend time and money trying to protect their systems because of some anti-Microsoft zealots who are the same people complaining that they can't patch windows cause they stole it?
That's life. Honest companies and hard working people are inconvenienced with keys to get into their work, homes, and cars. The list goes on. While a vast majority of the human population are harmless at worst, there are those few that get off on dishonesty, deception, theft, power trips, you name it.
There is (or should be) some direct relationship between the value to something and the level of security in protecting it. Banks have more sophisticated and difficult to crack facilities than say your average hot dog stand or residence. Same goes with the banks' computer networks.
Being that using Microsoft products has had a record of being exploited for years, those that still use their products or use them without the utmost care must not care about their computing experience or data that much or using Microsoft products is "all they know" (very common), or there are "legacy" reasons.
Although I am biased. My bias is based on direct experience and the experience of others. I like being free of things like virus checkers, service packs that break random stuff, instability, and whatever else comes with a Windows PC. I know that many people's current livelihoods are based on these issues, and even they complain.
I seem to be in the minority, so my opinion isn't worth that much. Just food for thought.
If we don't, what is your definition of superior animals?
One species that can watch another dwindle and die without taking action? Personally, I don't think that's particularly superior.
As "Superior animals" I think humanity has a duty to protect other species.
Sure, so long as it is in the best interest of the "superior animal" to survive. I'm assuming that the "superior animal" i question is a human.
I've never eaten an elephant, tiger, or anything like that. I've never used their skins for clothing, or any other part of these animals for anything useful in my life that I know of. I don't use them for transportation or as a labor source. I've only seen such animals in cages.
Aside from our interest in looking at and studying these kinds of animals, they do not seem to fulfill any other need to the human race or any other part of our ecosystem here in North America.
Yeah, and Solaris x86 has been around since 1992. Hasn't killed Linux yet.
That, and if you read the article it sounded like installing Linux on a computer in 1994. The bios needed upgrading which needed a windows machine to do the update. The sound card did not work or it was a pain to convince it to work. The nic was not supported out of the box. Then they talk about running Gnome or KDE as the "desktop environment" which is better now than it was in 1994, but neither are that great.
I can almost hear the fun in the stockholder boardroom now. "We are going to make more money by providing a free operating system to work on computers we do not sell. Linux will die!"
I hope Sun wouldn't say anything like that, but after providing a _Linux_ computer that was sold at Walmart, anything is possible.
It would work if they legally forced anyone w/ a porn site to move to an xxx domain...
Too bad thats illegal in the US today.
Keep in mind that the MPAA and the RIAA have voluntarily implemented their own rating system, and I've heard few objections to that. It seems to work quite well.
"The Department of Commerce has received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails from individuals expressing concern about the impact of pornography on families and children," Gallagher said in a letter that was made public on Monday.
Just an open sorta offtopic question, but I've never heard of any impact of pornography on families and children. Any evidence to the contrary would be welcome, but I always associate the supposed impact with a wife and/or mother getting upset that her son and/or husband is beating off to porn. In my experience, women get upset over tons of stuff.
If you have a.xxx domain, then it's possible to distinguish between the part of the internet that's supposed to have objectionable material and the part that isn't.
1) I think all TLDs are almost worthless. The ones besides.com,.edu,.org, and.gov and the two letter country TLDs are completely worthless. 99% of the time if its not a.com, 99% of the web surfers don't know what to do with it. I will amend my opinion to allow for the only useful addition to the TLD fun game to include.xxx.
2) Having Bush oppose.xxx speaks for itself. Draw your own conclusions.
As it is now, most all of the porn sites that would volunteer to go into the.xxx domain already have over 18 advisories, parental controls, etc. Having them volunteer to register under the.xxx should really simplify things for parents, businesses, and whoever wants to keep people from looking at porn so much easier.
As it stands now, certain things in URLs are filtered where I work. I got a warning page for clicking on the CNN swimsuit URL which is fairly appropriate to do, I've had other URLs that were not at all about humans (computers, science or something) that were also filtered. Having a.xxx domain and its exclusion from work would seem simple and easy.
I'm not pro censorship, but using a.xxx domain for XXX material seems as appropriate as CNN using CNN.com for their domain. CNN would be pretty stupid to pick www.fuckmewithachainsaw.com. CNN would be pretty stupid to pick CNN.xxx for their now domain name as well.
I disagree with Bush basically because its not part of his job to even mention the.xxx domain.
If money is being exchanged or made from my opinion then the one individual that most deverves some or all of that financial gain is the original owner of the opinion/preference (me).
I hate to break it to you, but your opinion is not worth much at all to marketers.
Quick thought test -- Imagine that in your opinion an iPod-like toy that had a harddrive, an LCD panel, and a builtin plunger is the next best thing that you would pay any money for. I don't think that will be on the market anytime soon, but thats my opinion.
If I own something that has value and someone else takes it and prevents me from profitting myself from it, that is theft, plain and simple.
No its not, although some of the/. crowd believe it is.
Back to the original thing about exchanging money from your opinion thing. The company that makes those animal-like turnstiles to count everybody riding a themepark ride aren't going to pay people for being counted. The theme park is not going to pay you. The census bureau isn't either.
Now the poor marketing people feel as though some of their hard researched scientific data may not be good because the users may be deleting too many cookies too quickly. WTF kind of control exists with people at home and work accessing a website?
I almost find it amusing how "scientific" these marketing people try to get. Sure, there is basic psychology, but putting too much faith in your users cookies as a real tool for measurement is a bit optimistic at best. Science it is not. Think about the subpopulations that are likely to delete cookies. Hint, they are right in the target audience for most marketed products, younger males. Think about those demographics of people that would never delete cookies. I would guess that would lie with most computer or technology illiterate people, and those that don't care. I do cookie maintenance irregularly, and I go through and delete anything that looks like its around advertising or irrelevant stuff. Basically, I delete everything except my slashdot cookies and my bank cookies, but that is not universal.
Sorry guys we are deleting our cookies. However, your only hope of them being preserved is if a user keeps them there, the browser does not automatically delete them, the cookie file never gets full (I believe its limited by the specs to be something like a total of 65k for all cookies combined), and the user always uses the same browser on the same computer. I would not base any critical data on those assumptions.
Dunno, but I would welcome an added $0.05 to the $0.25 price of a blank CD and the end of the RIAA BS.
Actually, I thought for years that the RIAA should just put a tax on all playback systems and let the music be free, or a nominal cost for media.
Especially since Sony is now one of the few remaining recording companies out there, and I've heard they make electronics too. Imagine how popular SACDs and players would be if you could get a SACD quality recording for a few cents since you already bought your SACD player.
Think about how new higher quality media would be available if the profit margins were much better on new players, and there was an instant availability of the newer media too. Things like DVD-audio and DTS audio recordings have essentially failed because of the lack of content and/or players. People seem to buy these MP3 players for years, and it was only recently that it was even legal to buy an MP3.
Oh, this is the mid 80's, lets keep pressing those low quality CDs and over 20 years later let's complain that people are converting CDs to even lower quality MP3s. Much better option, IMHO.
FedEx or (insert your favorite delivery company here) and ship it.
Yes, I'm showing my age by mentioning of tape trading. But I used to trade tapes via snail-mail all the time. And my favorite shipping company was the USPS. They have "book rates" that include tapes and maybe CDs too that are very inexpensive.
My current situation.
I have over 400Gigs of music at home on my computer (flac encoded ~ 50% compression). That amounts to about 1600 CDs with an average of 50 minutes of music per CD.
That does not count my store bought CDs from before the RIAA lost me as a customer. I do still buy used CDs sometimes, so I guess I'm still a threat to the RIAA even though I'm doing legal stuff. Actually, about 70 to 80% of my pressed aluminum CDs were bought from a used CD store, but I don't need the "new stuff" just the "good stuff".
At even $5/CD, my music collection is not worth over $8,000.
I'm sorry. Its worth $40/month for broadband. Its worth the cost of two 400 gig disks and equipment to interface with them, that is about it.
So, recordable media is a big threat to "music fans". Welcome to the late 70s or early 80s RIAA. That is when we started taping for ourselves.
I often wish I had the problem of holding a bulk of the recorded media out there that everybody wanted so much. Kinda fits that whole supply/demand thing.
Hint -- all you have to do is figure out how to make purchasing a recording a value to people. At this rate, the RIAA will be a painful memory in an wikipedia entry.
Is it just me, or does anybody else think that these attempts might show some promise, but in the long end probably won't work.
This may not work. I don't know.
The thing here is that there are basically 3 types of SPAM.
1) Annoying mails from a legitimate company that you may or may not have explicitly told them they could spam you, or you are just being punished for being their customer. The difference here is that they _DO_ comply with opting out.
2) Annoying mails from a semi-legitimate company that will not unsubscribe you without physical intervention with a baseball bat. Ticketmaster is a prime example of this, and my baseball bat is ready.
3) Annoying mails from a non-legitimate company or other entity, often outside of your country, that will never stop sending you more and more mail until your email address does not work. Even then, they will probably send mail, it just will not be delivered.
Number 2 is very annoying, but hey, maybe I will or some bozo like me might actually want to see Britney Spears someday, and a reminder that she is coming to town from Ticketmaster will bring out my weakness for such a thing. You never know.
Number 1 is tolerable.
Number 3 is not. This is were all of the phishing scams come from, the V_1_@_G_8_A, the black market software sales, rolex watches, pr0n, Nigerian scams, and whatnot. These mails often have either a deceptive subject and/or to or from address. The domain names are registered in bulk and do not have an index page at the top level of the website. The domains often have inaccurate information in the registrar's records. The products are either nonexistent, illegal, quasi-illegal, or simply a front to confirm your address so you will get more.
There are 2 things in common with the Number 3 group that do not exist in the others. A need for anonymity via email and the web as part of their "business model" and a need for that 1 in a million sale to that 1 in a million moron, so a million mails are required for one sale, and X times a million mails for enough sales to make money. In my opinion, if registrars did their job by validating the authenticity of a domain name request, a vast majority of the spam domains would no longer exist.
I don't get hardly any spam in my inbox because of a tuned installation of spamassassin. I've also reduced the amount of incoming spam by using spamgourmet from http://www.spamgourmet.com/. Its an excellent way to easily and dynamically create disposable addresses that will not receive spam after a configurable number of mails have been forwarded to you. It also lets you look to see who has tried to spam you! So far, the leader is the email address I used for an NYTimes registration. About 40 mail a month try to get to that address (I just use one of those random ones now).
I hate spam. I will foe anybody that puts spam in their slashdot sigs like for the "free" stuff like iPods or Minis. I have nothing against you wanting to make money, but if I'm not interested in either your product or helping you make money and I ask you to leave me alone, do it. DO NOT SHOUT LOUDER THINKING I WILL NOW RESPOND. DO NOT KEEP SHOUTING AND SHOUTING LOUDER THINKING I WILL RESPOND.
Are you saying that the loophole in the law is that if someone decides not to follow it, then the law does not apply?
Sure. If there is a law regarding a standard but no law requiring the use of the standard, then it should be easy to just say "I didn't follow the standard".
Kinda like the difference between a bank and a savings and loan. A bank must be FDIC insured, a snl does not (or requires FSLIC or something, may be different now), but saying that a Snl has FDIC insurance when it does not would be against the law.
Slashdot Mirror
Any modern Linux distribution worth its salt (pardon the pun) uses at least an MD5-based salted password storage system.
/etc/shadow file (or more conveniently in /etc/passwd)?
And doesn't that modern Linux distribution conveniently store those salt entries as the 8 characters following the $1$ characters in the
Visiting this site (md5 one) resulted in pop-ups
/me scratches head, and remembers the "bad times"
What are popups?
I remember some obnoxious sites like CNN and other sites that used to open unannounced windows like 4 or 5 years ago, but I thought nobody used them anymore.
Am I behind the times in modern security?
AFAIK, for years all *NIX-like systems put their hashes in a root-only readable file (/etc/shadow), and its a prerequisite to either hack root or exploit some rare and obscure local exploit that may dump the contents of the shadow file (core dumps, or whatever).
Now, as far as I am concerned. Any system that has been root compromised, then all user accounts are assumed to be compromised as well. Instead of only wasting time trying to brute force passwords now that you can access the shadow file, you can add a new account for yourself, modify an existing account with the 'passwd' command, trojan an existing binary (not very useful since most everybody checks their system binaries, right???), or do whatever people do when they root a box (usually something really evil like install an IRC bot).
I've never understood fascination around password security, when they are probably the least exploited weakness in computers since WOMPR was broken into with the 'joshua' password.
I've used passphrase protected ssh keys instead of passwords for years. If I had more informed users I would not even allow passworded access via ssh, but that would probably cause me more headaches than its worth. Also, on a side note, does anybody know why the ssh daemon cannot tell if a public key access to the system has been protected with a passphrase? I understand why there are passphraseless keys, but it should be known to the daemon and possible to reject non-protected public keys.
Wow!
I have never seen google used that effectively before, and I'm guessing your biased like I am against Bush, but those searches are just putting the key words from those questions with "Bush" thrown in also.
Wow again. Good job. I may have to bookmark this.
Go read a DSM (the bible for psychological and psychiatric problems). Many people find at least a half of a dozen things wrong with themselves and others. However, its the degree and impairment that is important.
Is he glib and superficially charming? - Is he a people-person?
Psychopaths are commonly "cutesy". Don't take things seriously. Mostly because they don't give a shit about other people, and this helps them "blend in".
Does he have a grandiose sense of self-worth? - Does he add value to the company?
There is more than this. There are many people that have value to many companies that are not grandiose about it. Actually, I've never heard this as a trait for a psychopath. It doesn't make much sense to me.
Is he a pathological liar? - Does he keep the investors informed
Psychopaths lie whenever they feel like it. So do many other people.
Is he a con artist or master manipulator? - Does he attract new business?
There is a difference here. Attracting new business implies that he is doing something for someone else, a con artist or master manipulator is doing something to serve themselves. A classic symptom.
When he harms other people, does he feel a lack of remorse or guilt? - Does he have what it takes to thrive in a competitive enviroment?
This is critical. Everybody makes mistakes and sometimes other people are affected by those mistakes, and its "normal" for people to feel worse when someone else is involved than just themselves. A psychopath simply does not feel empathy or care about other people at all. The interesting thing is how difficult it is for people to notice. I lived with a psychopath for one summer, and I didn't realize he was a psychopath until a few years later.
Does he have a shallow affect? - Does he let his emotions control his business decisions?
Not sure here.
Is he callous and lacking in empathy? - Is he able to place the interests of the company first?
Wrong again. A psychopath is self serving, he does not care about the company or anybody.
Does he fail to accept responsibility for his own actions? - My personal favorite - Is he able to look at the 'Big Picture'
No. A psychopath never takes blame or responsibility for anything. They avoid the subject, act cute, lie, blame others, say "so what?" etc. This too is a critical feature of a psychopath.
Yes I am.
Good for you. I was hoping that was the response to the question.
Its annoying how the word engineer gets thrown around in the US. In most of Europe, and possibly other places, an engineer is a real title like an MD.
Here if you take out the trash your a sanitation engineer. The higher ups where I work call us UNIX and Windows engineers. Yuck.
there is very little else that can serve as a deterrent.
Let me think...
Beheading. Public humiliation (stockades, or something similar). A tattoo on the forehead. Deportation. Loss of driver's license. An intense chemical or physical sensory overload such as being confined with a horrible smell or intense low frequency sound that is nauseating. Flogging.
No, I'm not a sadist, but I did come up with all of these off the top of my head.
Jail and prison are the adult version of being sent to your room when you were a child. The unfortunate thing is that unlike when you were a child, there are others with you.
Actually, besides beheading and the intense sensory thing, all of the other techniques are used in raising children all the time. I don't understand the insistence on incarceration for any legal infraction. Especially when one looks at the data and realizes that it does little to modify the behavior of the person.
OTOH, theories like the falling velocity of an object being related to its mass (excluding the effects of air friction) are discarded, because there never was evidence to support them.
Actually, over 15 years ago, I read where in a vacuum lighter objects fall faster than heavier ones. I don't remember the details, and haven't heard anything about it since, but it was an interesting read.
Does anybody actually know the charge he was convicted of? I looked at the article and it mentioned pleas and taking "stolen property" across state lines, and CAN-SPAM, but none of these were clear as to what he was actually convicted of.
Anybody?
It is all just speculation.
All stock is speculation. Actually, money is too. Ever hear of people one day finding out their money is "worthless" and wallpaper their house with it?
I find this all kinda strange yet interesting.
You have got to be kidding?
Those "domain park" sites are often up in the google search hits, and they are useless when I accidentally click on one of them. I've learned how to visually filter them out now.
If that is really a good source of income for google, I would assume that this is only as temporary as the "put it on the web and make millions" that happened in the late 90's and early 00's.
Sure people may click though them now, but I don't see this lasting.
Newton's 3 laws survived 239 years, I wonder how long Einstein's will last?
Einstein's _theories_ will last until evidence no longer supports them (just like all science).
Newton's _laws_ were and still are wrongly named.
And another pedantic relativity thing. The E=MC^2 was part of the _Special_ Theory of Relativity which says that measurements of time and distance vary as anything moves relative to anything else. This is where the twins where one goes in a rocket near the speed of light and the rocket twin comes back still young and the stationary twin is old (I really hope I didn't embarrass myself by reversing this, but I think this is right).
The other theory of Relativity that Einstein came up with was the _General_ Theory of Relativity that came out in 1915. This is the space-time continuum being bent by gravity.
Einstein was a little upset that he was able to join the two theories into one, but then again that is the goal of many physicists today.
Einstein was a very interesting and good person from everything I have heard and read. RIP.
People who hate Windows write worms and viruses designed to discredit the operating system and cause mass chaos.
I've never heard of people writing worms motivated by hate. I thought it was a childish king of the hill kind of thing. If someone hates a software product that much to write and execute a worm worldwide, I'm sure these same people hate other things too, and their targets would do more specific damage than they do now. I could be wrong, I've never experienced a worm on the computers I've used or administered in over 10 years (yes, I dual booted back then).
People who hate Microsoft pirate Windows (see the first reply to this article) or refuse to authenticated it in an effort to defy the M$ empire and therefore cannot utilize the patches designed to keep their system safe from other Microsoft haters.
Those people are weird. I never go out of my way to use something I hate.
So now honest companines and hard working individuals must spend time and money trying to protect their systems because of some anti-Microsoft zealots who are the same people complaining that they can't patch windows cause they stole it?
That's life. Honest companies and hard working people are inconvenienced with keys to get into their work, homes, and cars. The list goes on. While a vast majority of the human population are harmless at worst, there are those few that get off on dishonesty, deception, theft, power trips, you name it.
There is (or should be) some direct relationship between the value to something and the level of security in protecting it. Banks have more sophisticated and difficult to crack facilities than say your average hot dog stand or residence. Same goes with the banks' computer networks.
Being that using Microsoft products has had a record of being exploited for years, those that still use their products or use them without the utmost care must not care about their computing experience or data that much or using Microsoft products is "all they know" (very common), or there are "legacy" reasons.
Although I am biased. My bias is based on direct experience and the experience of others. I like being free of things like virus checkers, service packs that break random stuff, instability, and whatever else comes with a Windows PC. I know that many people's current livelihoods are based on these issues, and even they complain.
I seem to be in the minority, so my opinion isn't worth that much. Just food for thought.
Heres the output when plugged in, followed by battery power:
Plugged in: IOBatteryInfo
Capacity: 2947
Amperage: 0
Cycle Count: 226
Current: 2942
Voltage: 12413
Flags: 1090519045
AbsoluteMaxCapacity: 4200
Battery: IOBatteryInfo
Capacity: 2947
Amperage: 18446744073709550153
Cycle Count: 226
Current: 2942
Voltage: 11753
Flags: 4
AbsoluteMaxCapacity: 4200
Whether you want another battery is up to you though. Is the battery life getting to be an issue?
I guess not, but I might use my laptop on battery more often if it got decent battery life.
Nice script. However here is the output from my PowerBook:
IOBatteryInfo
Capacity: 2947
Amperage: 0
Cycle Count: 226
Current: 2942
Voltage: 12414
Flags: 1090519045
AbsoluteMaxCapacity: 4200
My laptop is fully charged.
Does the Capacity of 2947 out of 4200 mean that my battery is going?
I don't get very good battery life anymore. My laptop is about 18 months old or so. Do you think its worthwhile to replace the battery?
Shouldn't "Superior animals" help others?
If we don't, what is your definition of superior animals?
One species that can watch another dwindle and die without taking action? Personally, I don't think that's particularly superior.
As "Superior animals" I think humanity has a duty to protect other species.
Sure, so long as it is in the best interest of the "superior animal" to survive. I'm assuming that the "superior animal" i question is a human.
I've never eaten an elephant, tiger, or anything like that. I've never used their skins for clothing, or any other part of these animals for anything useful in my life that I know of. I don't use them for transportation or as a labor source. I've only seen such animals in cages.
Aside from our interest in looking at and studying these kinds of animals, they do not seem to fulfill any other need to the human race or any other part of our ecosystem here in North America.
Yeah, and Solaris x86 has been around since 1992. Hasn't killed Linux yet.
That, and if you read the article it sounded like installing Linux on a computer in 1994. The bios needed upgrading which needed a windows machine to do the update. The sound card did not work or it was a pain to convince it to work. The nic was not supported out of the box. Then they talk about running Gnome or KDE as the "desktop environment" which is better now than it was in 1994, but neither are that great.
I can almost hear the fun in the stockholder boardroom now. "We are going to make more money by providing a free operating system to work on computers we do not sell. Linux will die!"
I hope Sun wouldn't say anything like that, but after providing a _Linux_ computer that was sold at Walmart, anything is possible.
It would work if they legally forced anyone w/ a porn site to move to an xxx domain...
Too bad thats illegal in the US today.
Keep in mind that the MPAA and the RIAA have voluntarily implemented their own rating system, and I've heard few objections to that. It seems to work quite well.
"The Department of Commerce has received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails from individuals expressing concern about the impact of pornography on families and children," Gallagher said in a letter that was made public on Monday.
Just an open sorta offtopic question, but I've never heard of any impact of pornography on families and children. Any evidence to the contrary would be welcome, but I always associate the supposed impact with a wife and/or mother getting upset that her son and/or husband is beating off to porn. In my experience, women get upset over tons of stuff.
If you have a .xxx domain, then it's possible to distinguish between the part of the internet that's supposed to have objectionable material and the part that isn't.
.com, .edu, .org, and .gov and the two letter country TLDs are completely worthless. 99% of the time if its not a .com, 99% of the web surfers don't know what to do with it. I will amend my opinion to allow for the only useful addition to the TLD fun game to include .xxx.
.xxx speaks for itself. Draw your own conclusions.
.xxx domain already have over 18 advisories, parental controls, etc. Having them volunteer to register under the .xxx should really simplify things for parents, businesses, and whoever wants to keep people from looking at porn so much easier.
.xxx domain and its exclusion from work would seem simple and easy.
.xxx domain for XXX material seems as appropriate as CNN using CNN.com for their domain. CNN would be pretty stupid to pick www.fuckmewithachainsaw.com. CNN would be pretty stupid to pick CNN.xxx for their now domain name as well.
.xxx domain.
1) I think all TLDs are almost worthless. The ones besides
2) Having Bush oppose
As it is now, most all of the porn sites that would volunteer to go into the
As it stands now, certain things in URLs are filtered where I work. I got a warning page for clicking on the CNN swimsuit URL which is fairly appropriate to do, I've had other URLs that were not at all about humans (computers, science or something) that were also filtered. Having a
I'm not pro censorship, but using a
I disagree with Bush basically because its not part of his job to even mention the
If money is being exchanged or made from my opinion then the one individual that most deverves some or all of that financial gain is the original owner of the opinion/preference (me).
/. crowd believe it is.
I hate to break it to you, but your opinion is not worth much at all to marketers.
Quick thought test -- Imagine that in your opinion an iPod-like toy that had a harddrive, an LCD panel, and a builtin plunger is the next best thing that you would pay any money for. I don't think that will be on the market anytime soon, but thats my opinion.
If I own something that has value and someone else takes it and prevents me from profitting myself from it, that is theft, plain and simple.
No its not, although some of the
Back to the original thing about exchanging money from your opinion thing. The company that makes those animal-like turnstiles to count everybody riding a themepark ride aren't going to pay people for being counted. The theme park is not going to pay you. The census bureau isn't either.
Now the poor marketing people feel as though some of their hard researched scientific data may not be good because the users may be deleting too many cookies too quickly. WTF kind of control exists with people at home and work accessing a website?
I almost find it amusing how "scientific" these marketing people try to get. Sure, there is basic psychology, but putting too much faith in your users cookies as a real tool for measurement is a bit optimistic at best. Science it is not. Think about the subpopulations that are likely to delete cookies. Hint, they are right in the target audience for most marketed products, younger males. Think about those demographics of people that would never delete cookies. I would guess that would lie with most computer or technology illiterate people, and those that don't care. I do cookie maintenance irregularly, and I go through and delete anything that looks like its around advertising or irrelevant stuff. Basically, I delete everything except my slashdot cookies and my bank cookies, but that is not universal.
Sorry guys we are deleting our cookies. However, your only hope of them being preserved is if a user keeps them there, the browser does not automatically delete them, the cookie file never gets full (I believe its limited by the specs to be something like a total of 65k for all cookies combined), and the user always uses the same browser on the same computer. I would not base any critical data on those assumptions.
Canadian-Style Media Tax
Is that in America's near future?
Dunno, but I would welcome an added $0.05 to the $0.25 price of a blank CD and the end of the RIAA BS.
Actually, I thought for years that the RIAA should just put a tax on all playback systems and let the music be free, or a nominal cost for media.
Especially since Sony is now one of the few remaining recording companies out there, and I've heard they make electronics too. Imagine how popular SACDs and players would be if you could get a SACD quality recording for a few cents since you already bought your SACD player.
Think about how new higher quality media would be available if the profit margins were much better on new players, and there was an instant availability of the newer media too. Things like DVD-audio and DTS audio recordings have essentially failed because of the lack of content and/or players. People seem to buy these MP3 players for years, and it was only recently that it was even legal to buy an MP3.
Oh, this is the mid 80's, lets keep pressing those low quality CDs and over 20 years later let's complain that people are converting CDs to even lower quality MP3s. Much better option, IMHO.
FedEx or (insert your favorite delivery company here) and ship it.
Yes, I'm showing my age by mentioning of tape trading. But I used to trade tapes via snail-mail all the time. And my favorite shipping company was the USPS. They have "book rates" that include tapes and maybe CDs too that are very inexpensive.
My current situation.
I have over 400Gigs of music at home on my computer (flac encoded ~ 50% compression). That amounts to about 1600 CDs with an average of 50 minutes of music per CD.
That does not count my store bought CDs from before the RIAA lost me as a customer. I do still buy used CDs sometimes, so I guess I'm still a threat to the RIAA even though I'm doing legal stuff. Actually, about 70 to 80% of my pressed aluminum CDs were bought from a used CD store, but I don't need the "new stuff" just the "good stuff".
At even $5/CD, my music collection is not worth over $8,000.
I'm sorry. Its worth $40/month for broadband. Its worth the cost of two 400 gig disks and equipment to interface with them, that is about it.
So, recordable media is a big threat to "music fans". Welcome to the late 70s or early 80s RIAA. That is when we started taping for ourselves.
I often wish I had the problem of holding a bulk of the recorded media out there that everybody wanted so much. Kinda fits that whole supply/demand thing.
Hint -- all you have to do is figure out how to make purchasing a recording a value to people. At this rate, the RIAA will be a painful memory in an wikipedia entry.
Is it just me, or does anybody else think that these attempts might show some promise, but in the long end probably won't work.
This may not work. I don't know.
The thing here is that there are basically 3 types of SPAM.
1) Annoying mails from a legitimate company that you may or may not have explicitly told them they could spam you, or you are just being punished for being their customer. The difference here is that they _DO_ comply with opting out.
2) Annoying mails from a semi-legitimate company that will not unsubscribe you without physical intervention with a baseball bat. Ticketmaster is a prime example of this, and my baseball bat is ready.
3) Annoying mails from a non-legitimate company or other entity, often outside of your country, that will never stop sending you more and more mail until your email address does not work. Even then, they will probably send mail, it just will not be delivered.
Number 2 is very annoying, but hey, maybe I will or some bozo like me might actually want to see Britney Spears someday, and a reminder that she is coming to town from Ticketmaster will bring out my weakness for such a thing. You never know.
Number 1 is tolerable.
Number 3 is not. This is were all of the phishing scams come from, the V_1_@_G_8_A, the black market software sales, rolex watches, pr0n, Nigerian scams, and whatnot. These mails often have either a deceptive subject and/or to or from address. The domain names are registered in bulk and do not have an index page at the top level of the website. The domains often have inaccurate information in the registrar's records. The products are either nonexistent, illegal, quasi-illegal, or simply a front to confirm your address so you will get more.
There are 2 things in common with the Number 3 group that do not exist in the others. A need for anonymity via email and the web as part of their "business model" and a need for that 1 in a million sale to that 1 in a million moron, so a million mails are required for one sale, and X times a million mails for enough sales to make money. In my opinion, if registrars did their job by validating the authenticity of a domain name request, a vast majority of the spam domains would no longer exist.
I don't get hardly any spam in my inbox because of a tuned installation of spamassassin. I've also reduced the amount of incoming spam by using spamgourmet from http://www.spamgourmet.com/. Its an excellent way to easily and dynamically create disposable addresses that will not receive spam after a configurable number of mails have been forwarded to you. It also lets you look to see who has tried to spam you! So far, the leader is the email address I used for an NYTimes registration. About 40 mail a month try to get to that address (I just use one of those random ones now).
I hate spam. I will foe anybody that puts spam in their slashdot sigs like for the "free" stuff like iPods or Minis. I have nothing against you wanting to make money, but if I'm not interested in either your product or helping you make money and I ask you to leave me alone, do it. DO NOT SHOUT LOUDER THINKING I WILL NOW RESPOND. DO NOT KEEP SHOUTING AND SHOUTING LOUDER THINKING I WILL RESPOND.
Are you saying that the loophole in the law is that if someone decides not to follow it, then the law does not apply?
Sure. If there is a law regarding a standard but no law requiring the use of the standard, then it should be easy to just say "I didn't follow the standard".
Kinda like the difference between a bank and a savings and loan. A bank must be FDIC insured, a snl does not (or requires FSLIC or something, may be different now), but saying that a Snl has FDIC insurance when it does not would be against the law.