The really sad thing is I'm almost positive I know who your company is and who its primary customers are. If I'm correct, you develop Point-of-Sale systems to run on 386s and 486s, and one of your distributors is a tiny company called EMF. One of your customers is a small Christian bookstore. Am I right? If so e-mail me.
I pulled a similar feat years ago on much lesser hardware and covered all three major OS's. Running on a PowerBook Duo 270c, which IIRC is a 68030 @ 25 MHz w/ 24 MB RAM and a 240 MB hard drive I ran:
MacOS 7.5.5
SoftPC w/ DOS 5 and Windows 3.x
MachTen Unix
I know others are able to similar things very easily, and on a variety of hardware and platforms. Multi-OS emulation is nothing interesting, really. The trick is to settle upon one operating system that does what you need it to and work with that.
(And I'm sure somebody will be happy to point out the Linux is that OS. Good for you.)
Yes, and Hitler was VOTED into his office, then he slowly took away people rights, one by one..
America has a very strong history of protecting its civil rights, even in instances where they have been [apparantly] in jeopardy. It's extremely vogue here on Slashdot to make all manner of reference to the Nazi regime and other recent 20th-century democracies that have slipped into fascism or autocracy (BTW, off topic, the term fascism is horribly misused on this site).
The missing piece in the argument is that the American democratic republic is radically different in several key areas from other democracies and republics, especially European ones. Americans historically have a very high sense of self-preservation. The events of September 11th have massively re-inforced this notion. That self-preservation extends to issues of civil rights.
Americans have adamantly defended their basic liberties throughout history. There is not a sleeper majority of the American public that is apathetic to this issue. To be sure, the majority is less informed than Slashdot viewers (thanks to a handful of schizophrenic editors *coughing*timothy*coughing*), but that doesn't dissolve into the slippery slope wherein it is imagined that tomorrow, Americans wake up to telescreens on their walls.
What am I getting at? This bill, in its basic letter form, is dangerous, but that doesn't mean that the government has been given free reign to abuse civil liberties. If abuses start, the public will speak out, and this bill will be quickly curbed.
Stop worrying. You haven't been put in shackles.
Now go ahead and mod me down for disagreeing, per the Slashdot norm.
Sure, for example, we don't have an Office killer *currently*, but where exactly does he explain why we can never have one?
Because this argument comes around in a huge way every year or so, and every year or so there are promises made that Linux will have a Microsoft-matching killer app "very soon."
Despite this, the work fails to materialize. The Linux community has made huge strides in many areas, but it still hasn't caught up to the level Microsoft products were at several years ago. (In this, I'm referring to mundane desktop applications, not server-related things)
The author is absolutely right to question seriously the future of the progress of Linux in terms of real-world use in business and education markets. There are Linux projects moving to an Microsoft level of competancy, but the problem is that there are a lot of them, and even collectively, they don't match the unified development efforts of products like Microsoft Office.
Once Linux stops playing catch up, matches item-for-item the things that Microsoft offers, and then takes the game one step further and pushes ahead of Microsoft, then it will have something.
Unfortunately, as of the current time, development is still too fragmented and far behind to be considered peer with Microsoft's products.
Correct. The usage of the work as someone who "breaks into computers" go back to at least 1973, from a document on ARPAnet by Bob Metcalfe (yes, *the* Bob Metcalfe) using the term "hacker" in this way.
"cracker," for everyone who has forgotten, originally meant someone very adept at guessing/breaking passwords.
Wow, a Slashdot discussion that doesn't revolve around Linux!
In speaking of operating systems, for system maintenance, my opinion is that less is more. I prefer a schedule where only major updates are done once every few months. This allows for admins or users to do a re-installation and only need to worry about installing one central package (a Service Pack, for instance) instead of a group of smaller patches. It simplifies and streamlines the setup.
I think the way Microsoft releases updates and Service Packs through Windows Update is a good system. The major packages, as I've spoken, are released every several months. One big installation takes care of everything - updates to Internet Explorer, security patches, etc. In between those times, critical updates are made available as well, but then incorporated into the larger package update at a later point in time. If I need a smaller update, it's available, but eventually I can get it in a bigger, easier-to-install package. This seems to me to be a good solution.
Since when is allowing parents to control what video games their children play censorship? Parents have a right to restrict what games their children play, and this chip gives them a good way of doing that. Parents should teach their children what games are acceptable and what are not, but no matter how much you teach a kid, curiosity is going to get the best of them eventually.
Many parents don't want their kids exposed to the violence and sexual content on video games, and this chip gives them a way to do that. I think that Slashdotters should recognize their right and desire to do that, even if you disagree that it's the right way to do it.
Just because the chip is there doesn't mean Microsoft or some NSA agent is going to slip into your house and randomly make it impossible for you to play certain games. Not every restriction on software is automatically an attempt by a big faceless entity to censor every aspect of people's lives. This is a legitament use of this technology.
The headline, especially, is just more Slashdot sensationalism.
I don't think he was contesting its legality, just the intelligence factor of it. Building bombs doens't have much/anything to do with hacking and phreaking, nor do drugs (another issue the original editors were famous for devoting space to). Phrack's current editor, Route, has publicly chastised the former editors on several occasions over these issues.
Either way, Phrack isn't gone, it's just in another of its infamous 19-months-between-issues periods.
We've been working on network theory for a while and an idea which we've been working on recently is adaptive system and network security that models the identification and proaction of a biological immune system.
Basically, the security system all incoming and outgoing traffic, processes, etc. As it analyzes a network configuration, it 1) adapts to that network and covers potentials holes from the start, 2) learns from and builds immunity to network attacks, hostile processes, and general system errors such as buffer overflows. Many security systems are, to a point, adaptive to their environment, but I have yet to see a security design that is adaptive/intelligent enough to configure itself to "live" within an environment and to become intelligently symbiotic with that environment.
How much work have you done with highly adaptive security systems, and do you foresee adaptive security becoming a working reality within the next decade?
Many/most people that laughed at this claim forget that computer networks operate almost identically to power grids. By taking out all the Cisco routers, for instance, you might only take 30%-50% of the networks, but as other networks attempt to fail over and become dependant on the still live networks, those networks, routers, and servers become overloaded with the traffic and start to fail. It's a domino effect. This is the reason when someone with a backhoe cuts a major cross-continental fibre line, the rest of the Internet, especially in nearby affected areas, slows to a crawl because other networks failing over to another backbone creates a strain on those lines and equipment. Now, for my question to L0pht: What, in terms of network design, do you see as the single biggest threat to security?
More sensationalist nickel writings by Mr. Katz, from the man who brought you the sob stories of oppressed geeks everywhere (welcome to the world, boys and girls) comes the touching tale of a misguided religious effort.
Unfortunately, his article had nothing to do with the possible spiritual aspects and everything to do with the "this-game's-place-in-society" aspect, which is not at all what it's about. I thought journalists did research...I know I did.
The game, by the way, looks disappointing as far as graphics go, but I don't suspect I was really expecting to see Unreal-level graphics out of this genre. Nevertheless I think I'll try to pick up a copy.
Well, I respect ESR's move towards opening up the computer industry, etc., but I must say that I lost nearly all my respect for him after his fascist little slur that Kevin Mitnick deserved to be in prison. This just furthers the cause. To debunk the paper by saying that Bezroukov's extensive and well-thought-out essay "adds nothing new" is quite an ignorant statment. I agree with most of the comments I've seen in here that ESR has become too political for his position. You're a brilliant computer scientist, ESR, but let's keep it to that and keep your little pro-McCarthyist opinions to yourself.
Indeed. And, as a note, institutions like 2600 have been around far longer than your beloved Slashdot too. This crap about programmers being "hackers" is completely new, save a few dedicated discussions on BBSs and such in the 80s. See my post in other section for a history of the term "hacker".
Oh my goodness! Someone who knows the truth! THANK YOU! Here's a brief history lesson for all you Slashdot kiddies out there.
"Hacker" originally meant someone who was adept at programming and/or the ins and outs of a system, including how to exploit said system. As electronic systems came online, the term came to mean people who explored security through the use of programs and/or programming. People who "broke into" computer systems were, and still are correctly, called "hackers". "Crackers" were originally people who were extremely adept at cracking passwords and or using math to crack encryption algorithms. "Crackers" has never been used to describe people who break into computer systems (though many hackers could also be considered "crackers" if they are adept at breaking passwords). Slashdot and it's following of codeheads has been the only establishment in history I can think of that uses the term "hacker" to describe computer programmers. This is incorrect, however, so get over it.
Bwa ha ha. "really cool computer person"? HA! Don't flatter yourself. The rest of the world considers programmers to be "geeks", "nerds", or loners. And trying to lynch off the word "hacker" isn't going to help your predicament. If you're looking for a better crusade to join, why not try convincing people that programmers are "really cool computer people"? Bwa ha ha!!!
According to some "inside" industry information I have, at least a few of the new color WinCE PDAs have TFT color screens that are visible "in any light". Personally, I don't know how they'll do this. Screen makers have tried this for years. But it would only make sense, seeing as you don't want a constant backlight on 2 AA's, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
cr@ckwhore,
The really sad thing is I'm almost positive I know who your company is and who its primary customers are. If I'm correct, you develop Point-of-Sale systems to run on 386s and 486s, and one of your distributors is a tiny company called EMF. One of your customers is a small Christian bookstore. Am I right? If so e-mail me.
MacOS 7.5.5
SoftPC w/ DOS 5 and Windows 3.x
MachTen Unix
I know others are able to similar things very easily, and on a variety of hardware and platforms. Multi-OS emulation is nothing interesting, really. The trick is to settle upon one operating system that does what you need it to and work with that.
(And I'm sure somebody will be happy to point out the Linux is that OS. Good for you.)
Yes, and Hitler was VOTED into his office, then he slowly took away people rights, one by one..
America has a very strong history of protecting its civil rights, even in instances where they have been [apparantly] in jeopardy. It's extremely vogue here on Slashdot to make all manner of reference to the Nazi regime and other recent 20th-century democracies that have slipped into fascism or autocracy (BTW, off topic, the term fascism is horribly misused on this site).
The missing piece in the argument is that the American democratic republic is radically different in several key areas from other democracies and republics, especially European ones. Americans historically have a very high sense of self-preservation. The events of September 11th have massively re-inforced this notion. That self-preservation extends to issues of civil rights.
Americans have adamantly defended their basic liberties throughout history. There is not a sleeper majority of the American public that is apathetic to this issue. To be sure, the majority is less informed than Slashdot viewers (thanks to a handful of schizophrenic editors *coughing*timothy*coughing*), but that doesn't dissolve into the slippery slope wherein it is imagined that tomorrow, Americans wake up to telescreens on their walls.
What am I getting at? This bill, in its basic letter form, is dangerous, but that doesn't mean that the government has been given free reign to abuse civil liberties. If abuses start, the public will speak out, and this bill will be quickly curbed.
Stop worrying. You haven't been put in shackles.
Now go ahead and mod me down for disagreeing, per the Slashdot norm.
Sure, for example, we don't have an Office killer *currently*, but where exactly does he explain why we can never have one?
Because this argument comes around in a huge way every year or so, and every year or so there are promises made that Linux will have a Microsoft-matching killer app "very soon."
Despite this, the work fails to materialize. The Linux community has made huge strides in many areas, but it still hasn't caught up to the level Microsoft products were at several years ago. (In this, I'm referring to mundane desktop applications, not server-related things)
The author is absolutely right to question seriously the future of the progress of Linux in terms of real-world use in business and education markets. There are Linux projects moving to an Microsoft level of competancy, but the problem is that there are a lot of them, and even collectively, they don't match the unified development efforts of products like Microsoft Office.
Once Linux stops playing catch up, matches item-for-item the things that Microsoft offers, and then takes the game one step further and pushes ahead of Microsoft, then it will have something.
Unfortunately, as of the current time, development is still too fragmented and far behind to be considered peer with Microsoft's products.
Correct. The usage of the work as someone who "breaks into computers" go back to at least 1973, from a document on ARPAnet by Bob Metcalfe (yes, *the* Bob Metcalfe) using the term "hacker" in this way.
"cracker," for everyone who has forgotten, originally meant someone very adept at guessing/breaking passwords.
So people don't have to feel dumb looking it up. From www.m-w.com:
: selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles
: composed of elements drawn from various sources;
Eclectic; adj.
1
2
Wow, a Slashdot discussion that doesn't revolve around Linux!
In speaking of operating systems, for system maintenance, my opinion is that less is more. I prefer a schedule where only major updates are done once every few months. This allows for admins or users to do a re-installation and only need to worry about installing one central package (a Service Pack, for instance) instead of a group of smaller patches. It simplifies and streamlines the setup.
I think the way Microsoft releases updates and Service Packs through Windows Update is a good system. The major packages, as I've spoken, are released every several months. One big installation takes care of everything - updates to Internet Explorer, security patches, etc. In between those times, critical updates are made available as well, but then incorporated into the larger package update at a later point in time. If I need a smaller update, it's available, but eventually I can get it in a bigger, easier-to-install package. This seems to me to be a good solution.
Since when is allowing parents to control what video games their children play censorship? Parents have a right to restrict what games their children play, and this chip gives them a good way of doing that. Parents should teach their children what games are acceptable and what are not, but no matter how much you teach a kid, curiosity is going to get the best of them eventually.
Many parents don't want their kids exposed to the violence and sexual content on video games, and this chip gives them a way to do that. I think that Slashdotters should recognize their right and desire to do that, even if you disagree that it's the right way to do it.
Just because the chip is there doesn't mean Microsoft or some NSA agent is going to slip into your house and randomly make it impossible for you to play certain games. Not every restriction on software is automatically an attempt by a big faceless entity to censor every aspect of people's lives. This is a legitament use of this technology.
The headline, especially, is just more Slashdot sensationalism.
I don't think he was contesting its legality, just the intelligence factor of it. Building bombs doens't have much/anything to do with hacking and phreaking, nor do drugs (another issue the original editors were famous for devoting space to). Phrack's current editor, Route, has publicly chastised the former editors on several occasions over these issues.
Either way, Phrack isn't gone, it's just in another of its infamous 19-months-between-issues periods.
Anybody know where I can pick one of these phones up on the cheap now, or does anyone have one they want to sell to me?
To L0pht:
We've been working on network theory for a while and an idea which we've been working on recently is adaptive system and network security that models the identification and proaction of a biological immune system.
Basically, the security system all incoming and outgoing traffic, processes, etc. As it analyzes a network configuration, it 1) adapts to that network and covers potentials holes from the start, 2) learns from and builds immunity to network attacks, hostile processes, and general system errors such as buffer overflows. Many security systems are, to a point, adaptive to their environment, but I have yet to see a security design that is adaptive/intelligent enough to configure itself to "live" within an environment and to become intelligently symbiotic with that environment.
How much work have you done with highly adaptive security systems, and do you foresee adaptive security becoming a working reality within the next decade?
Many/most people that laughed at this claim forget that computer networks operate almost identically to power grids. By taking out all the Cisco routers, for instance, you might only take 30%-50% of the networks, but as other networks attempt to fail over and become dependant on the still live networks, those networks, routers, and servers become overloaded with the traffic and start to fail. It's a domino effect. This is the reason when someone with a backhoe cuts a major cross-continental fibre line, the rest of the Internet, especially in nearby affected areas, slows to a crawl because other networks failing over to another backbone creates a strain on those lines and equipment. Now, for my question to L0pht: What, in terms of network design, do you see as the single biggest threat to security?
More sensationalist nickel writings by Mr. Katz, from the man who brought you the sob stories of oppressed geeks everywhere (welcome to the world, boys and girls) comes the touching tale of a misguided religious effort.
Unfortunately, his article had nothing to do with the possible spiritual aspects and everything to do with the "this-game's-place-in-society" aspect, which is not at all what it's about. I thought journalists did research...I know I did.
The game, by the way, looks disappointing as far as graphics go, but I don't suspect I was really expecting to see Unreal-level graphics out of this genre. Nevertheless I think I'll try to pick up a copy.
Well, I respect ESR's move towards opening up the computer industry, etc., but I must say that I lost nearly all my respect for him after his fascist little slur that Kevin Mitnick deserved to be in prison.
This just furthers the cause. To debunk the paper by saying that Bezroukov's extensive and well-thought-out essay "adds nothing new" is quite an ignorant statment. I agree with most of the comments I've seen in here that ESR has become too political for his position.
You're a brilliant computer scientist, ESR, but let's keep it to that and keep your little pro-McCarthyist opinions to yourself.
Indeed. And, as a note, institutions like 2600 have been around far longer than your beloved Slashdot too. This crap about programmers being "hackers" is completely new, save a few dedicated discussions on BBSs and such in the 80s. See my post in other section for a history of the term "hacker".
Oh my goodness! Someone who knows the truth! THANK YOU! Here's a brief history lesson for all you Slashdot kiddies out there.
"Hacker" originally meant someone who was adept at programming and/or the ins and outs of a system, including how to exploit said system.
As electronic systems came online, the term came to mean people who explored security through the use of programs and/or programming. People who "broke into" computer systems were, and still are correctly, called "hackers".
"Crackers" were originally people who were extremely adept at cracking passwords and or using math to crack encryption algorithms. "Crackers" has never been used to describe people who break into computer systems (though many hackers could also be considered "crackers" if they are adept at breaking passwords).
Slashdot and it's following of codeheads has been the only establishment in history I can think of that uses the term "hacker" to describe computer programmers. This is incorrect, however, so get over it.
Bwa ha ha. "really cool computer person"? HA! Don't flatter yourself. The rest of the world considers programmers to be "geeks", "nerds", or loners. And trying to lynch off the word "hacker" isn't going to help your predicament.
If you're looking for a better crusade to join, why not try convincing people that programmers are "really cool computer people"? Bwa ha ha!!!
According to some "inside" industry information I have, at least a few of the new color WinCE PDAs have TFT color screens that are visible "in any light". Personally, I don't know how they'll do this. Screen makers have tried this for years. But it would only make sense, seeing as you don't want a constant backlight on 2 AA's, eh?