Assuming supersonic travel underwater produces the same kind of shock waves ("sonic booms") that air travel does, damage to the hearing of marine mammals could be extensive.
Not to forget that underwater shockwaves are a lot more powerful than those in air. I'd expect that a supersonic underwater veichle(sp?) would have a nice large death-zone.
There's probably more blood in other games, but trust me- SOF has brought a wince to the face of many a jaded gamer who wouldn't bat an eye at a Quake3 gibfest as they see an SOF enemy have both his arms blown off with a shotgun and then sink to the ground with a knife in his groin.
I'd have to AOL that. Doom, Quake and other games have that cartoonish feel to them.
The first time I tried the SOF demo, it completely grossed me out. It feels way too realistic for my taste.
You hit a guy in the foot, he jumps around moaning for a bit and then starts to shoot at you again. You know you have to blast him once or twice more to finish him off, and you know that in the process you'll probably blow off at least one of his arms.
Imagine this situation: you get called to a user's BSD box because they, for some reason, find that they can't connect to the Internet. You immediately find that the network cable was pulled out. However, plugging it back in doesn't fix anything. You discover at this point that they deleted everything in/etc. "Hey, it says 'etc', and that means unnecessary, right?"
A true admin would never experience this, as he would never trust such a luser with root.
Also, he would have a system in place for a painless unattended reinstall of fsck'ed workstations.
(The 68000 didn't support a MMU.. only the 68030 actually did. So there was no real way to detect page faulting)
I'm in the nitpicking department at the moment.:)
It is true that the '030 was the first 680x0 that had an MMU on-chip.
The 68020 supported an external MMU chip. It was also possible to add an MMU to the 68010, but that required additional hardware trickery on the motherboard.
IBM's BIOS was published in copyrighted technical reference manuals in its entirety.
I believe they aggressively published it on purpose. I.e. make it very likely that any programmer capable of reimplementing their BIOS had been exposed to that material. Later, they could then drag a BIOS cloner to court and ask their programmers: "Have you ever read any IBM copyrighted manuals containing our BIOS specification?".
For a brief discussion of reverse-engineering, see cssfaq
What Compaq/Phoenix had to do, was to find some programmers that were willing to claim under oath that they had never seen the IBM BIOS code, or copyrighted documents on the BIOS specification.
This is what is really bad with NT security, the default settings are a joke; but the base concept is quite good.
Agreed. The security model of NT is basically a superset of *nix and VMS'. Not very surprising, since Dave Cutler also designed VMS, and one of the targets for WNT was to be posix compatible (a requirement by the US gov.).
The stinker is that NT comes rather unsecured out of the box, and it is a bitch to go over all ACLs by hand.
without the Windows cash cow to fall back on, MS-Apps will be less interested in gambling by investing signifigant development time in a non-mainstream platform.
Actually, MS-Office is their real cash-cow.
Windows is mainly used as a sledgehammer to keep OEMs and ISVs in line.
I suggest saving every document in an open format, ie RTF
And which version of RTF would that be?:)
Open file formats is something I have been wanting for a long time. The problem is that there is no economic incentive for commercial software developers to use an open format unless it is already in widespread use. Why on earth should they make it easy for the sheep^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers to migrate to their competitors' products?
Perhaps what is needed here is something in the robots.txt file (does ebay have one of these?). But then again, not all spiders respect this file, so I don't know.
robots.txt can have the opposite effect, also. Black hats and script kiddies often look at it to see what the site admin wants to hide.
Re:Failure to implement open standards.
on
Linux Failover?
·
· Score: 1
As for a public implementation - I should have a Linux VRRP implementation out this week.
Very interesting. I suppose that this is related to http://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=2181, or is that a different project?
As for VRRP, I believe that an accurate description of the protocol is available here
This is an interesting point, and actually causes me to consider the Usenet case, and how slashdot differers greatly from this. If Slashdot is going to maintain that the content posted by users is owned by users, then the users need to have complete control over their content (they do own it, after all). This is clearly not the case (no 'cancel' or 'supersede' provision in SlashCode).
...as if 'cancel' has worked on Usenet the last 5 years.:)
Really? How can you ever trust a vendor that knowingly puts a backdoor in your system and "forgets" to tell you about it (and more important, how to disable it)?
IMHO, the only kind of backdoor that is acceptable, is one that can only be used if you have physical access to the box. With physical access, it is possible to do anything with the box anyway. It is thus convenient to have a _documented_ backdoor for those forgot-the-password situations. For example the backdoor in Cisco routers.
Any kind of undocumented backdoor that is exploitable over a network is braindead. You often end up with a scenario where the backdoor is known by black-hats, the vendor keeps radio silence, and us poor network admins have huge gaping holes that we don't know about and can't close.
Maybe MS did a good thing here, maybe not.
In no way is this a good thing if you are responsible for network security.
Although it falls under 'fair use' for you to copy your DVD, copying that DVD (which you are allowed) requires you to circumvent a copy control mechanism, which requires the useof an ILLEGAL tool, and is an ILLEGAL act. So although having the copy is legal, the act of circumventing the copy protection to make that copy is illegal. That's messed up.
Or said in the words of a person that IAPOL:
"Code that cracks a protection device is criminal under the DMCA even if the use of the copyrighted material that the code enables would be fair use." - Lawrence Lessig, Berkman Professor of Law, Harward Law School.
Actually, using it should be legal as long as you only use it on movies you own and provided that what you use the decrypted video files for is covered by "fair use".
Owning a lockpick is legal. Picking your own door is legal. Picking someone elses is not, unless you have acquired permission from the owner.
The judge deemed DeCSS illegal because he believes that its _primary use_ is for pirating movies.
Never mind that pirating 4-8GB of data is impractical and expensive today, that the DeCSS algorithm is necessary to write a DVD player that is not hampered with DVDCCA's licensing terms, and that reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is legal in most countries out there, but I digress.
I've blown away a good number of ICs, though that's usually because I misread the pinout.
I had an IDE HD give up its magic smoke once. Someone made an extension power cable which mismatched the +5 and +12. The result was a couple of blown chips.
Not that this is in any way interesting, or even on-topic.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat isn't a distro for the people who want the latest and greatest updates as soon as possible
It isn't?
ISTR that it was one of the first distros to make the change from libc5 to glibc, and it was very early with a.out->elf also.
My experience with RH is that x.0 contains a lot of new and beta stuff, x.1 has a lot of bugfixes and x.2 is very decent.
Assuming supersonic travel underwater produces the same kind of shock waves ("sonic booms") that air travel does, damage to the hearing of marine mammals could be extensive.
Not to forget that underwater shockwaves are a lot more powerful than those in air. I'd expect that a supersonic underwater veichle(sp?) would have a nice large death-zone.
With directional propulsion, it'll turn faster & brake faster out of harms way than most aircrafts.
I see. In the future, the "fasten seatbelts" sign will mean dolphins ahead instead of a thunderstorm.
I wonder what the effect on the passengers on a craft like this will be when they are exposed to several Gs.
Some dirty DAMN communists think the can break the law and get off!
You're probably a troll, but I'll bite anyway.
2600 is legally in the gray area, as they may be guilty of trafficing in a circumvention device - that is, if CSS really is an access control device.
DMCA, however, is an overly broad law. If misused, it can effectively circumvent both the copyright law and the first sale doctrine.
If you didn't understand any of this, please go read the court documents here
it will take a lot of money on 2600's part to do it.
EFF is covering 2600's legal expenses.
There's probably more blood in other games, but trust me- SOF has brought a wince to the face of many a jaded gamer who wouldn't bat an eye at a Quake3 gibfest as they see an SOF enemy have both his arms blown off with a shotgun and then sink to the ground with a knife in his groin.
I'd have to AOL that. Doom, Quake and other games have that cartoonish feel to them.
The first time I tried the SOF demo, it completely grossed me out. It feels way too realistic for my taste.
You hit a guy in the foot, he jumps around moaning for a bit and then starts to shoot at you again. You know you have to blast him once or twice more to finish him off, and you know that in the process you'll probably blow off at least one of his arms.
Imagine this situation: you get called to a user's BSD box because they, for some reason, find that they can't connect to the Internet. You immediately find that the network cable was pulled out. However, plugging it back in doesn't fix anything. You discover at this point that they deleted everything in /etc. "Hey, it says 'etc', and that means unnecessary, right?"
A true admin would never experience this, as he would never trust such a luser with root.
Also, he would have a system in place for a painless unattended reinstall of fsck'ed workstations.
(The 68000 didn't support a MMU.. only the 68030 actually did. So there was no real way to detect page faulting)
:)
I'm in the nitpicking department at the moment.
It is true that the '030 was the first 680x0 that had an MMU on-chip.
The 68020 supported an external MMU chip. It was also possible to add an MMU to the 68010, but that required additional hardware trickery on the motherboard.
IBM's BIOS was published in copyrighted technical reference manuals in its entirety.
I believe they aggressively published it on purpose. I.e. make it very likely that any programmer capable of reimplementing their BIOS had been exposed to that material. Later, they could then drag a BIOS cloner to court and ask their programmers: "Have you ever read any IBM copyrighted manuals containing our BIOS specification?".
For a brief discussion of reverse-engineering, see
cssfaq
What Compaq/Phoenix had to do, was to find some programmers that were willing to claim under oath that they had never seen the IBM BIOS code, or copyrighted documents on the BIOS specification.
no writing to anything, not network connections, not files, not nothin'
That would require either a "sandbox" like Java, or a major redesign of the security model.
This is what is really bad with NT security, the default settings are a joke; but the base concept is quite good.
Agreed. The security model of NT is basically a superset of *nix and VMS'. Not very surprising, since Dave Cutler also designed VMS, and one of the targets for WNT was to be posix compatible (a requirement by the US gov.).
The stinker is that NT comes rather unsecured out of the box, and it is a bitch to go over all ACLs by hand.
without the Windows cash cow to fall back on, MS-Apps will be less interested in gambling by investing signifigant development time in a non-mainstream platform.
Actually, MS-Office is their real cash-cow.
Windows is mainly used as a sledgehammer to keep OEMs and ISVs in line.
I suggest saving every document in an open format, ie RTF
:)
And which version of RTF would that be?
Open file formats is something I have been wanting for a long time. The problem is that there is no economic incentive for commercial software developers to use an open format unless it is already in widespread use. Why on earth should they make it easy for the sheep^H^H^H^H^Hcustomers to migrate to their competitors' products?
Perhaps what is needed here is something in the robots.txt file (does ebay have one of these?). But then again, not all spiders respect this file, so I don't know.
robots.txt can have the opposite effect, also. Black hats and script kiddies often look at it to see what the site admin wants to hide.
As for a public implementation - I should have a Linux VRRP implementation out this week.
Very interesting. I suppose that this is related to http://sourceforge.net/project/?group_id=2181, or is that a different project?
As for VRRP, I believe that an accurate description of the protocol is available here
745: FDISK in the Enterprise
With the new and improved magic Master Bootrecord Reposession-option?
Why is it ok to break the DMCA but not okay for me to go break the GPL? Seems like a pretty huge double standard to me.
.doc format in order to make my own document reader.
:)
Because the DMCA is bad. It is an overly broad law which give software and content manufacturers way too much power.
The DMCA must be shot down, or in 5 years I won't be able to:
- buy "e-books" and read them on whatever equipment _I_ choose, convert it to whatever format that is most convenient for _my_ private use.
- search for holes and weaknesses in my brand new firewall, and post the findings on Bugtraq.
- legally reverse engineer the latest version of MicroSoft's
I think those are worth fighting for.
This is an interesting point, and actually causes me to consider the Usenet case, and how slashdot differers greatly from this. If Slashdot is going to maintain that the content posted by users is owned by users, then the users need to have complete control over their content (they do own it, after all). This is clearly not the case (no 'cancel' or 'supersede' provision in SlashCode).
:)
...as if 'cancel' has worked on Usenet the last 5 years.
Backdoors aren't always a bad thing.
Really? How can you ever trust a vendor that knowingly puts a backdoor in your system and "forgets" to tell you about it (and more important, how to disable it)?
IMHO, the only kind of backdoor that is acceptable, is one that can only be used if you have physical access to the box. With physical access, it is possible to do anything with the box anyway. It is thus convenient to have a _documented_ backdoor for those forgot-the-password situations. For example the backdoor in Cisco routers.
Any kind of undocumented backdoor that is exploitable over a network is braindead. You often end up with a scenario where the backdoor is known by black-hats, the vendor keeps radio silence, and us poor network admins have huge gaping holes that we don't know about and can't close.
Maybe MS did a good thing here, maybe not.
In no way is this a good thing if you are responsible for network security.
Just write it in perl
Would you call Perl expressive?! *duck*
Although it falls under 'fair use' for you to copy your DVD, copying that DVD (which you are allowed) requires you to circumvent a copy control mechanism, which requires the useof an ILLEGAL tool, and is an ILLEGAL act. So although having the copy is legal, the act of circumventing the copy protection to make that copy is illegal. That's messed up.
Or said in the words of a person that IAPOL:
"Code that cracks a protection device is criminal under the DMCA even if the use of the copyrighted material that the code enables would be fair use."
- Lawrence Lessig, Berkman Professor of Law, Harward Law School.
Welcome to BenchDot:
News for Lawyers, Stuff that Sues
Ask Benchdot: Pro bono, pros and cons?
but compiling it and using it is NOT.
Actually, using it should be legal as long as you only use it on movies you own and provided that what you use the decrypted video files for is covered by "fair use".
Owning a lockpick is legal. Picking your own door is legal. Picking someone elses is not, unless you have acquired permission from the owner.
The judge deemed DeCSS illegal because he believes that its _primary use_ is for pirating movies.
Never mind that pirating 4-8GB of data is impractical and expensive today, that the DeCSS algorithm is necessary to write a DVD player that is not hampered with DVDCCA's licensing terms, and that reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is legal in most countries out there, but I digress.
I've blown away a good number of ICs, though that's usually because I misread the pinout.
:)
I had an IDE HD give up its magic smoke once. Someone made an extension power cable which mismatched the +5 and +12. The result was a couple of blown chips.
Not that this is in any way interesting, or even on-topic.
This is the logic that has kept us from adopting the metric system.
;)
I have been told that you are approaching the metric system "inch by inch".