Yes... but although I type rather fast, I would definitely typo at least something once.. and forget an include file.... like you did.....
So.. I'd have to compile... then go edit it again, fix it.. then recompile...
then trash my system.
-Restil
Is this REALLY a problem?
on
Linux Virus Alert
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can write a binary that when run by root will erase your entire system. And I can probably do so in under a minute. Somehow, I doubt it will ever hurt anyone. Anyone smart anyhow.
Programs that exploit security holes are far and wide. Yet, they are typically released as source code, usually attached to messages in security mailing lists. We can take a quick glance over this source before compiling it and running it. And besides, if it IS your typical exploit code, nobody needs to run it as root. To do so would defeat the purpose of having an exploit in the first place.
I do like the statement, however, that linux users are less likely to open unknown attachments. Says quite a lot about our community right there.
I can already control my appliances. I can already control my computer using a TV as a monitor. To watch a video/audio source on a computer screen, I can stick a realtime mpeg encoder at the source and easily stream it through a 10mbps network with no difficulty.
Doesn't Tivo save TV programs already? If not, I'm always able to download them off usenet or other places due to the due diligence of a few dedicated individuals.
What this looks like is that they're attempting to create an all-in-one solution and standardize it. Good/Bad who knows. The point here is.. We have 3 years to come up with an alternative solution and standardize the market on it before they have a chance to embrace/extend/exploit.
Assuming this is true, it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. However, when you run a company, you don't piss off your customers. You don't mock them, you don't ridicule them behind their back. They're the ones sending you money. You can choose to not do business with them, thats fine. But if you want to do business with them, you treat them with respect, no matter who they are, no matter what they represent.
I doubt the company itself endorsed such activity, but it reflects badly on them in any case. And doesn't Microsoft have enough problems as it is?
I can see hanging out at the theatre the night before the tickets go on sale, not just to be sure to get a ticket, but because its usually a fun group of people to hang out with for a night.
But when PM came out, I went later that day, when there were no lines, and got a ticket for the second showing. The 12:01 was sold out, but the 12:30 am showing still had available spots.
now... I DID go to the theatre 3 hours before the movie started, and one hour before showtime the theatre was packed solid. And when I got there 3 hours early, there were already about 100 people ahead of me.
But still.. There is NO sense in waiting 5 months to get a 30 minute advance over everyone else. Chill.:)
I don't always WANT to be reached 24/7. I don't always want to have access to the world all the time. But here is the important thing. When I DO want it, I need the capability.
I can safely say I have no use for a cell phone. I used to have one. For years I carried the thing around with me everywhere I went. It seemed to be impossible to live without it. Then I did an assessment.
Turned out, the people most likely to call me on my phone, I never wanted to talk to. And the people I was calling from my cell phone, I could have just as easily called from a voice line. Call because I'm on my way and need directions? What is so difficult about getting proper directions before I left? Better doing that and having a vision in my mind exactly where I need to be going BEFORE I get in the car, rather than reacting last minute looking for streets in a residential area where I'm likely to hit someone due to lack of attention.
It would be useful, but I'm not going to be doing any websurfing while I'm driving, and I damn well hope nobody else is either. Certainly would be nice to listen to some mp3's, but I don't need internet access for that. Would be nice to have a live webcam in my car. However, the world can live without THAT feature to my website until I'm able to afford it.
Fact of the matter is, the world ISN'T connected all the time. The internet, for better or worse, is still a novelty for many people. Its making headway, but it still hasn't moved past the point where I need to be plugged in 24/7 or my life will suffer as a result.
I don't really use linux for desktop applications much. I have spent quite a bit of time dabbling with various desktop and window managers. However, I still use fvwm95 for mine. Why? Takes about 1/2 the ram of something more complex, like KDE or GNOME, is significantly faster, and doesn't offer much more than I need.
Install Gnome with the default wm of elightenment. E is a very slick looking window manager. Beautiful eyecandy. However, the second I try to maximise the window, I practicaly have to go searchign through documentation. And I'm an experienced user. I pride myself that I can sit down at pretty much ANY application program and figure it out in a matter of minutes. And yet, E baffles me. Of course, if I spent 15 minutes reading up on it, and playing with all the buttons, I'll probably be just as efficient with it as with anything else.
But I'm hesitant to do so. And If *I* am, then you can damn well bet that your average "my cupholder is broken" user isn't going to find it any easier. Do we WANT to make it easy? Do we want to have a linux desktop on every computer in the world? You get proponents either way.
Maintaining linux based desktops is MUCH nicer. Not only can I generally fix almost any problem over a modem, but its highly unlikely the user will be able to screw something up anyways, especially if I don't give them the root password. Make a copy of the configuration file once you have everything the way they want it. Then if they start playing and end up with a font size thats too tiny to read, 20 seconds later, the problem's fixed and I don't even have to leave my chair.
And if you catch the users before they've been exposed to a microsoft or mac product, then the window design will be entirely new to them, and they'll pretty much learn it the way you tell it to them. I'll teach ANYONE who's willing to learn. And people will gladly learn one system. Unfortunately, most people have been faithful users of microsoft products for the desktop. They've already got the idea of how its supposed to work/look and will resist any design that differs from that.
What potentially hurt linux with the bust is a new lack of unlimited funds which could be used for marketing. Since pretty much any business based soley on selling products you're giving away for free, you COULD make money, but chances are good, its not going to be enough to fund a microsoft marketing machine.
The current companies are entrenched with microsoft. Even if they never spent another cent upgrading, moving to linux would require significant costs in retraining and software porting. Sure, it would save money in the long run, but since the company already expects to spend that money on microsoft upgrades, they don't really consider the alternatives.
However, hit the new companies. Startups, and mom&pop buisinesses where the owners are already working at minimum wage just to keep things afloat. An extra $100 license makes a difference there. They could very easily consider free software to be a worthwhile investment of their time. This would force the entire computer infrastructure of their business to utilize it from the ground up. Microsoft may never get a foothold there.
You're asking a group of hackers... if doing something for the sake of doing it... "would be worth the time?"
You're askign a group of crackers... if performing the ultimate crack, obtaining command control of a satellite... "would be worth the time?"
As you said, the only reason it probably doesn't happen very often is a simple lack of the required tools. To hack into a system on the internet, you wouldn't need much more than an ascii terminal with an internet connection. To hack a satellite, you need some powerful equipment, and the average person who is able to afford such equipment, probably would recognize that the effort isn't worth the potential sacrifice.
Conventional networks were rather insecure in the beginning. But back then, the privilaged few who had access respected the system and didn't have the need or desire to exploit them. Times have changed, so much to the point that IF you are insecure, you WILL get exploited, and its only a matter of time? Satellites may begin to reflect this history soon. Right now, those able to access them have no need or desire to exploit them.
I might be blind, dumb, or lazy, but as much as I have searched for either an open source or at least free as in beer method for video streaming, I have been unable to do so. The only option I have found that even works for me is using realserver/realencoder to encode/broadcast live video. However, the license fees to use realserver for anything significant are so astronomical as to make it practically useless.
This really could be a killer ap for open source. A lot of companies spend a LOT of money to do commercial video streaming, and would jump at this in a heartbeat if it was even remotely similar in quality. They money they save would more than make up for any slight deficencies. And besides, it would give some serious competition to the very few companies that provide such services.
The biggest problem with the conventional P2P programs (Napster, gnutella, and the like) is they may sort by speed, but they never sort by location. These programs wreaked major havoc on universtity networks, but they didn't have to. Chances are that 95% of the data transferred could have been done inside the college network without ever hitting the upstream. Certainly, it could have caused bandwidth issues internally, but it was doing that anyways.
This is relatively simple too. Just measure hops. Find out where the backbone routers are, then separate out any servers that are found inside that router, and give priority to those.
There are many GOOD reasons to frown on the dating of co-workers. Find two people that just had a nasty breakup and make them work side by side. See how well that works.
Dating people who are above or under you (management wise) is also bad. First, there is the possibility of favoritism. Second, and even more important, there is the possibility of PERCEIVED favoritism.
If you DO get involved with someone from work, its wise that you at least attempt to make some separation which will make it unlikely you'll be working together. Either work different shifts or different departments that don't interact often. This way, there is little to no possibility of the relationship affecting the work for reasons that are beyond your reasonable control.
Also, companies have to be careful that they avoid getting sued in this "he looked at the wrong way, I'm suing for sexual harrasment" culture. A company I worked for said it could be considered to be sexual harrasment for a person in management to date one of the hourlies, even if it was completely consentual, because it could be percieved by the non-management employee that their job position might be improved IF they got involved.
It really is easier, for everyone involved, if you don't date co-workers. However, if you're leaving, or the co-worker you had your eye on is leaving, don't hesitate to update your address book.
But a few months ago, a system I maintained got hit by a cracker. Completely my fault, had a rather obvious security hole. So, I shrugged my shoulders and went about the task of reloading the system. Only I didn't patch up the new load right away, and he got back in, playing exactly the same games. Removing log files and setting up irc bouncers. Sure, I could have spent another hour and done a reload correctly at this point, but I decided to play with this guy for a while. Since the machine wasn't vital to any operations, I simply quarantined it on its own network, and set another system on that network strand to sniff all data going to and from the telnet and ftp ports.
Then I let the guy have fun. I'd hate to make assumptions as to his age, because I never did find out exactly, but judging by his rather brazen messages I'd place him in the sub-20 crowd. So after obtaining logs from more than five ip addresses from an ISP, I called the ISP and after they figured out which customer of theirs it was, I had them call the customer and mention that I'd be pressing charges if it didn't stop. It stopped. Completely. Never even tried again.
Now, I know as well as most poeple, that even if law enforcment even paid attention to me, it probably wouldn't go anywhere. I figure it was probably the parents of that kid that got the phone call from the ISP and while they may not be completely aware of what their son was doing, they were pretty damn well aware of what the scare word "hacker" meant and probably started to monitor the activities of their son a little more closely, as they realize they'd be legally liable if someone actually DID press charges.
I'm sure this cocky guy didn't stop of his own free will just because he realized someone was on to him. He knew I was on to him before that and was making quite a scene when he thought he had thwarted my sneaky logging techniques (he wasn't aware of the sniffing). If he was smart he would have stopped then, but no, he kept on trudging. But a single phone call stopped him.
Tom Bombadil is the only character in the story that can be safely removed entirely without affecting the rest of the story. Two events which happen during the time we spend with Tom: Frodo tries the ring for the first time, and we encounter the barrow wights, where frodo is once again tempted AND the four hobbits obtain their swords. However, these are plot elements that can safely be removed without upsetting the story.
The best part of the radio plays is they include a great many of the songs that are included in the books, along with characters expressing some real heartfelt emotions.
Between the two LOTR Movies and this radio adaption, the radio plays by far stick to the story line, almost to the letter. Obviously they have to abridge it somewhat, but the most important parts of the story are maintained in excellent detail.
While not disappointed with the new movie, I was somewhat dismayed by their attempt to rush more important aspects of the story and drag out those parts that play little role. LOTR is, more than anything, about the growth of the characters. How these small, fat, lazy hobbits go on an adventure and when they return they run the evil out of their homeland. How a dirty rugged old ranger ends up becoming king, and how a dwarf and an elf, both with much inbred conflict with each other, manage to become lifelong friends.
The cave troll did not take 3 minutes to dispatch in the book. It was an orc chieftan who skewered frodo, not a troll. Frantically, the party ran from that room, carrying Frodo (whom they believed to be dead) with them. Gandalf attempts to seal the door with a spell, only the Balrog fights him back with magic and almost destroys him. All this was missed. Instead they have to spend precious time on the character development of Arwen, who doesn't get more than 5 minutes in the books anyways.
And at the end, we don't have the troublesome Aragorn. In the books, he was distraught because he didn't know what path to follow, and then everybody gets separated, Boromir dies, all the hobbits disappear, and the fate of frodo and sam is unknown. Aragorn is forced to make a decision on who they follow and choose to pursue Merry and Pippin.
Galadriel warned against betrayal in the party. Yet there was no such warning. Oh, the book hinted about Boromir's desire for the ring, but up until the very minute he tried to steal it, Frodo only thought that Boromir wanted them to keep it safe at Minas Tirith, and not to walk it into the enemy's hand. However, the rest of the party did not desire it so, and none of the rest of them were a risk. This is shown most prominantly in the "Samwise the Strong" segue in the third novel when Sam is tempted by the power of the ring while he holds it for a while, and yet manages to overcome it with barely any thought on the matter.
But anyways.. No need to overanalyze this. The radio plays are GOOD. Listen to them if you can.
You see this as an advantage. I see it as a limitation of the cable services. In fact, what they have done, is deprive you of the very overselling that makes the service reasonable in the first place. Yes, it will keep the warez kiddies in check, however you are now no longer able to download an iso as it will easily exceed 150 megs, unless we're talking a VERY small CD. How can you even justify this as useful?
Fact of the matter is, 150 megs a day is probably what their system can handle ON AVERAGE per user. They expect to have a lot of casual webserfers and people who check their email who don't consume much bandwidth and they expect the occasional warez kiddie who are pretty well responsible for the infamous 128kbps upstream cap that many providers have implemented. They expect this to even out in the long run and charge appropriately.
What they have done is constrain ALL their users to the least common denominator. Now, this is EXTREMELY cost effective for them, but it doesn't do squat for any power users. They would be far better off just canceling the service of anyone who's abusing the system and letting the rest of the users have free reign.
I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't hear that correctly. Are you implying that the rate was so tremendously greater than that.. so much that you're going to actually MISS the reduction in bandwidth?
Sorry. I might be overreacting here, but the fact of the matter is, you're still getting quite a nice chunk of bandwidth for a small fraction of what it would cost if you were to get the same speed T1 line. 1.5mbps is a CD each hour. Even if you're into somewhat less than legitimate file trasfering, you're still fighting the upstream caps of everyone else, so how critical is this anyways.
Ok.. I'm going to stop ranting now. Have a nice day.
Huh? A LOT of older ethernet network cards have AUI connectors. You don't see them on the 100mbps cards but since this maxes out at 10mbps anyways, who cares? If you're going to spend the time building this device, getting ahold of a compatible network card is not the biggest obstacle.:)
Its a tradeoff between power, protection, and usability.
Cry as I might at the lamebrained nature of something like the WebTV, it does indeed serve a purpose. It provides a virtually idiot proof websurfing experience for those who probably have difficulty operating their remote control. Of course, the webtv is a seriously limited application, but Joe Bob "I've done gotten on that there internet!" is virtually incapable of fucking it up.
Add a more versatile operating system, with multiple input devices, and hard disks, and floppy drives, and Instant messengers, and buggy email programs.. sorry, I mean fully featured email programs that run your attachments automatically.. Add all that in, and you increase usability but decrease protection from yourself. And yes, a lot of users need protection from themselves. WebTV was designed for those very people. Sadly though, they've chosen to wield a chainsaw when they can't handle a butterknife.
This is sad for numerous reasons. Its these very problems that are causing certain small software companies to offer largescale networks where mission critical data will be stored online somewhere. Because its safer there. All these problems we've been causing you create the need for us to provide you with a safe place to put your data. For a nominal monthly fee. And we're virtually certain we won't corrupt it. This is borderline extortion.
So engineer an idiot proof system and shove all the idiots there. They'll still leak out. AOL will make certain that any idiot can get on the internet, and they're doing a damn good job of it I might add. And so the cycle will continue. Idiot users will use insecure operating systems and the worms/viruses will always have fertile breeding ground.
What can ya do?
-Restil
To play with my webcams and lights, check out http://206.54.177.105
The attachment executes automatically, because we WANT it to do that.
Upon execution, a EULA pops up, with a "licence agreement" that states the following:
- The program being executed will automatically forward itself to a significant number of people using a variety of means
- Some type of modification will take place to your file system.
- By clicking OK you AUTHORIZE this to happen, and claim full responsibility for any damage that
is caused as a result.
And most importantly, if the cancel button is pressed, the program won't execute.
Chances are good that 90% of the people who would be affected by an illegal virus will just as happily click OK without reading anything. The fact of the matter is, the virus will cause the same amount of damage, but the author could probably plaster his name all over it and not fear any legal repercussions.
Of course, there's always the issue of intent. Bottom line, authorized or not, the INTENT of the program was to cause havok of the same nature as a virus. But in the end, it would sure make an idiot out of anyone who spread it.
And maybe, just maybe, it MIGHT result in people actually READING the EULA's. Yeah.. I know.. I'm dreaming.
The first sight of it should strike me with awe. Or if not awe, at the very least I should be somewhat surprised. Momentarily after that, I should ponder "How the heck did they DO that!".
This feat does neither. Its a banner. They wrapped it around a building. I'm sure a lot of work went into its creation, but in the end, I remain unimpressed.
And its not that I'm faulting them for their motives. Its just that they need to reach further. The dome has featured many glorious hacks. They need to strive to top those, not suffice to simply let past events overshadow the present ones.
Ahh... but this is a FAR more useful attempt than simply encouraging website operators to include cpu intensive java applets on their webpages to create the illusion that older computers are too slow to handle "today's tough demanding applications" like web browsing.
-Restil
This has given me an idea....
on
Uplink
·
· Score: 2
Similar theme. Only more integrated into real life. Instead of being encapsulated within a game, make the "game" use actual servers on the internet, use real email systems, allow the user to actually telnet in, etc etc...
Of course, this should be done in a more vitual manner so that others can enjoy the experience at the same time without interfering with others, but of course, interfering with others is part of the game.
I'm going to have to think this over some more....
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... but although I type rather fast, I would definitely typo at least something once.. and forget an include file.... like you did.....
So.. I'd have to compile... then go edit it again, fix it.. then recompile...
then trash my system.
-Restil
I can write a binary that when run by root will erase your entire system. And I can probably do so in under a minute. Somehow, I doubt it will ever hurt anyone. Anyone smart anyhow.
Programs that exploit security holes are far and wide. Yet, they are typically released as source code, usually attached to messages in security mailing lists. We can take a quick glance over this source before compiling it and running it. And besides, if it IS your typical exploit code, nobody needs to run it as root. To do so would defeat the purpose of having an exploit in the first place.
I do like the statement, however, that linux users are less likely to open unknown attachments. Says quite a lot about our community right there.
-Restil
I can already control my appliances. I can already control my computer using a TV as a monitor. To watch a video/audio source on a computer screen, I can stick a realtime mpeg encoder at the source and easily stream it through a 10mbps network with no difficulty.
Doesn't Tivo save TV programs already? If not, I'm always able to download them off usenet or other places due to the due diligence of a few dedicated individuals.
What this looks like is that they're attempting to create an all-in-one solution and standardize it. Good/Bad who knows. The point here is.. We have 3 years to come up with an alternative solution and standardize the market on it before they have a chance to embrace/extend/exploit.
-Restil
Assuming this is true, it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. However, when you run a company, you don't piss off your customers. You don't mock them, you don't ridicule them behind their back. They're the ones sending you money. You can choose to not do business with them, thats fine. But if you want to do business with them, you treat them with respect, no matter who they are, no matter what they represent.
I doubt the company itself endorsed such activity, but it reflects badly on them in any case. And doesn't Microsoft have enough problems as it is?
-Restil
And amazingly enough, they're not repeats!
I can see hanging out at the theatre the night before the tickets go on sale, not just to be sure to get a ticket, but because its usually a fun group of people to hang out with for a night.
:)
But when PM came out, I went later that day, when there were no lines, and got a ticket for the second showing. The 12:01 was sold out, but the 12:30 am showing still had available spots.
now... I DID go to the theatre 3 hours before the movie started, and one hour before showtime the theatre was packed solid. And when I got there 3 hours early, there were already about 100 people ahead of me.
But still.. There is NO sense in waiting 5 months to get a 30 minute advance over everyone else. Chill.
-Restil
I don't always WANT to be reached 24/7. I don't always want to have access to the world all the time. But here is the important thing. When I DO want it, I need the capability.
I can safely say I have no use for a cell phone. I used to have one. For years I carried the thing around with me everywhere I went. It seemed to be impossible to live without it. Then I did an assessment.
Turned out, the people most likely to call me on my phone, I never wanted to talk to. And the people I was calling from my cell phone, I could have just as easily called from a voice line. Call because I'm on my way and need directions? What is so difficult about getting proper directions before I left? Better doing that and having a vision in my mind exactly where I need to be going BEFORE I get in the car, rather than reacting last minute looking for streets in a residential area where I'm likely to hit someone due to lack of attention.
It would be useful, but I'm not going to be doing any websurfing while I'm driving, and I damn well hope nobody else is either. Certainly would be nice to listen to some mp3's, but I don't need internet access for that. Would be nice to have a live webcam in my car. However, the world can live without THAT feature to my website until I'm able to afford it.
Fact of the matter is, the world ISN'T connected all the time. The internet, for better or worse, is still a novelty for many people. Its making headway, but it still hasn't moved past the point where I need to be plugged in 24/7 or my life will suffer as a result.
-Restil
First, the desktop.
I don't really use linux for desktop applications much. I have spent quite a bit of time dabbling with various desktop and window managers. However, I still use fvwm95 for mine. Why? Takes about 1/2 the ram of something more complex, like KDE or GNOME, is significantly faster, and doesn't offer much more than I need.
Install Gnome with the default wm of elightenment. E is a very slick looking window manager. Beautiful eyecandy. However, the second I try to maximise the window, I practicaly have to go searchign through documentation. And I'm an experienced user. I pride myself that I can sit down at pretty much ANY application program and figure it out in a matter of minutes. And yet, E baffles me. Of course, if I spent 15 minutes reading up on it, and playing with all the buttons, I'll probably be just as efficient with it as with anything else.
But I'm hesitant to do so. And If *I* am, then you can damn well bet that your average "my cupholder is broken" user isn't going to find it any easier. Do we WANT to make it easy? Do we want to have a linux desktop on every computer in the world? You get proponents either way.
Maintaining linux based desktops is MUCH nicer. Not only can I generally fix almost any problem over a modem, but its highly unlikely the user will be able to screw something up anyways, especially if I don't give them the root password. Make a copy of the configuration file once you have everything the way they want it. Then if they start playing and end up with a font size thats too tiny to read, 20 seconds later, the problem's fixed and I don't even have to leave my chair.
And if you catch the users before they've been exposed to a microsoft or mac product, then the window design will be entirely new to them, and they'll pretty much learn it the way you tell it to them. I'll teach ANYONE who's willing to learn. And people will gladly learn one system. Unfortunately, most people have been faithful users of microsoft products for the desktop. They've already got the idea of how its supposed to work/look and will resist any design that differs from that.
What potentially hurt linux with the bust is a new lack of unlimited funds which could be used for marketing. Since pretty much any business based soley on selling products you're giving away for free, you COULD make money, but chances are good, its not going to be enough to fund a microsoft marketing machine.
The current companies are entrenched with microsoft. Even if they never spent another cent upgrading, moving to linux would require significant costs in retraining and software porting. Sure, it would save money in the long run, but since the company already expects to spend that money on microsoft upgrades, they don't really consider the alternatives.
However, hit the new companies. Startups, and mom&pop buisinesses where the owners are already working at minimum wage just to keep things afloat. An extra $100 license makes a difference there. They could very easily consider free software to be a worthwhile investment of their time. This would force the entire computer infrastructure of their business to utilize it from the ground up. Microsoft may never get a foothold there.
-Restil
You're asking a group of hackers... if doing something for the sake of doing it... "would be worth the time?"
You're askign a group of crackers... if performing the ultimate crack, obtaining command control of a satellite... "would be worth the time?"
As you said, the only reason it probably doesn't happen very often is a simple lack of the required tools. To hack into a system on the internet, you wouldn't need much more than an ascii terminal with an internet connection. To hack a satellite, you need some powerful equipment, and the average person who is able to afford such equipment, probably would recognize that the effort isn't worth the potential sacrifice.
Conventional networks were rather insecure in the beginning. But back then, the privilaged few who had access respected the system and didn't have the need or desire to exploit them. Times have changed, so much to the point that IF you are insecure, you WILL get exploited, and its only a matter of time? Satellites may begin to reflect this history soon. Right now, those able to access them have no need or desire to exploit them.
But just give it time.
-Restil
I might be blind, dumb, or lazy, but as much as I have searched for either an open source or at least free as in beer method for video streaming, I have been unable to do so. The only option I have found that even works for me is using realserver/realencoder to encode/broadcast live video. However, the license fees to use realserver for anything significant are so astronomical as to make it practically useless.
This really could be a killer ap for open source. A lot of companies spend a LOT of money to do commercial video streaming, and would jump at this in a heartbeat if it was even remotely similar in quality. They money they save would more than make up for any slight deficencies. And besides, it would give some serious competition to the very few companies that provide such services.
-Restil
The biggest problem with the conventional P2P programs (Napster, gnutella, and the like) is they may sort by speed, but they never sort by location. These programs wreaked major havoc on universtity networks, but they didn't have to. Chances are that 95% of the data transferred could have been done inside the college network without ever hitting the upstream. Certainly, it could have caused bandwidth issues internally, but it was doing that anyways.
This is relatively simple too. Just measure hops. Find out where the backbone routers are, then separate out any servers that are found inside that router, and give priority to those.
-Restil
There are many GOOD reasons to frown on the dating of co-workers. Find two people that just had a nasty breakup and make them work side by side. See how well that works.
Dating people who are above or under you (management wise) is also bad. First, there is the possibility of favoritism. Second, and even more important, there is the possibility of PERCEIVED favoritism.
If you DO get involved with someone from work, its wise that you at least attempt to make some separation which will make it unlikely you'll be working together. Either work different shifts or different departments that don't interact often. This way, there is little to no possibility of the relationship affecting the work for reasons that are beyond your reasonable control.
Also, companies have to be careful that they avoid getting sued in this "he looked at the wrong way, I'm suing for sexual harrasment" culture. A company I worked for said it could be considered to be sexual harrasment for a person in management to date one of the hourlies, even if it was completely consentual, because it could be percieved by the non-management employee that their job position might be improved IF they got involved.
It really is easier, for everyone involved, if you don't date co-workers. However, if you're leaving, or the co-worker you had your eye on is leaving, don't hesitate to update your address book.
-Restil
Somewhat off topic...
But a few months ago, a system I maintained got hit by a cracker. Completely my fault, had a rather obvious security hole. So, I shrugged my shoulders and went about the task of reloading the system. Only I didn't patch up the new load right away, and he got back in, playing exactly the same games. Removing log files and setting up irc bouncers. Sure, I could have spent another hour and done a reload correctly at this point, but I decided to play with this guy for a while. Since the machine wasn't vital to any operations, I simply quarantined it on its own network, and set another system on that network strand to sniff all data going to and from the telnet and ftp ports.
Then I let the guy have fun. I'd hate to make assumptions as to his age, because I never did find out exactly, but judging by his rather brazen messages I'd place him in the sub-20 crowd. So after obtaining logs from more than five ip addresses from an ISP, I called the ISP and after they figured out which customer of theirs it was, I had them call the customer and mention that I'd be pressing charges if it didn't stop. It stopped. Completely. Never even tried again.
Now, I know as well as most poeple, that even if law enforcment even paid attention to me, it probably wouldn't go anywhere. I figure it was probably the parents of that kid that got the phone call from the ISP and while they may not be completely aware of what their son was doing, they were pretty damn well aware of what the scare word "hacker" meant and probably started to monitor the activities of their son a little more closely, as they realize they'd be legally liable if someone actually DID press charges.
I'm sure this cocky guy didn't stop of his own free will just because he realized someone was on to him. He knew I was on to him before that and was making quite a scene when he thought he had thwarted my sneaky logging techniques (he wasn't aware of the sniffing). If he was smart he would have stopped then, but no, he kept on trudging. But a single phone call stopped him.
I almost have to assume it was the parents.
-Restil
Tom Bombadil is the only character in the story that can be safely removed entirely without affecting the rest of the story. Two events which happen during the time we spend with Tom: Frodo tries the ring for the first time, and we encounter the barrow wights, where frodo is once again tempted AND the four hobbits obtain their swords. However, these are plot elements that can safely be removed without upsetting the story.
The best part of the radio plays is they include a great many of the songs that are included in the books, along with characters expressing some real heartfelt emotions.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and turn on my lights at http://206.54.177.105
Between the two LOTR Movies and this radio adaption, the radio plays by far stick to the story line, almost to the letter. Obviously they have to abridge it somewhat, but the most important parts of the story are maintained in excellent detail.
While not disappointed with the new movie, I was somewhat dismayed by their attempt to rush more important aspects of the story and drag out those parts that play little role. LOTR is, more than anything, about the growth of the characters. How these small, fat, lazy hobbits go on an adventure and when they return they run the evil out of their homeland. How a dirty rugged old ranger ends up becoming king, and how a dwarf and an elf, both with much inbred conflict with each other, manage to become lifelong friends.
The cave troll did not take 3 minutes to dispatch in the book. It was an orc chieftan who skewered frodo, not a troll. Frantically, the party ran from that room, carrying Frodo (whom they believed to be dead) with them. Gandalf attempts to seal the door with a spell, only the Balrog fights him back with magic and almost destroys him. All this was missed. Instead they have to spend precious time on the character development of Arwen, who doesn't get more than 5 minutes in the books anyways.
And at the end, we don't have the troublesome Aragorn. In the books, he was distraught because he didn't know what path to follow, and then everybody gets separated, Boromir dies, all the hobbits disappear, and the fate of frodo and sam is unknown. Aragorn is forced to make a decision on who they follow and choose to pursue Merry and Pippin.
Galadriel warned against betrayal in the party. Yet there was no such warning. Oh, the book hinted about Boromir's desire for the ring, but up until the very minute he tried to steal it, Frodo only thought that Boromir wanted them to keep it safe at Minas Tirith, and not to walk it into the enemy's hand. However, the rest of the party did not desire it so, and none of the rest of them were a risk. This is shown most prominantly in the "Samwise the Strong" segue in the third novel when Sam is tempted by the power of the ring while he holds it for a while, and yet manages to overcome it with barely any thought on the matter.
But anyways.. No need to overanalyze this. The radio plays are GOOD. Listen to them if you can.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and turn on my lights at http://206.54.177.105"
You see this as an advantage. I see it as a limitation of the cable services. In fact, what they have done, is deprive you of the very overselling that makes the service reasonable in the first place. Yes, it will keep the warez kiddies in check, however you are now no longer able to download an iso as it will easily exceed 150 megs, unless we're talking a VERY small CD. How can you even justify this as useful?
Fact of the matter is, 150 megs a day is probably what their system can handle ON AVERAGE per user. They expect to have a lot of casual webserfers and people who check their email who don't consume much bandwidth and they expect the occasional warez kiddie who are pretty well responsible for the infamous 128kbps upstream cap that many providers have implemented. They expect this to even out in the long run and charge appropriately.
What they have done is constrain ALL their users to the least common denominator. Now, this is EXTREMELY cost effective for them, but it doesn't do squat for any power users. They would be far better off just canceling the service of anyone who's abusing the system and letting the rest of the users have free reign.
But yeah.. like THAT'S going to happpen.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights at http://206.54.177.105 .
I'm sorry. Maybe I didn't hear that correctly. Are you implying that the rate was so tremendously greater than that.. so much that you're going to actually MISS the reduction in bandwidth?
Sorry. I might be overreacting here, but the fact of the matter is, you're still getting quite a nice chunk of bandwidth for a small fraction of what it would cost if you were to get the same speed T1 line. 1.5mbps is a CD each hour. Even if you're into somewhat less than legitimate file trasfering, you're still fighting the upstream caps of everyone else, so how critical is this anyways.
Ok.. I'm going to stop ranting now. Have a nice day.
-Restil
Huh? A LOT of older ethernet network cards have AUI connectors. You don't see them on the 100mbps cards but since this maxes out at 10mbps anyways, who cares? If you're going to spend the time building this device, getting ahold of a compatible network card is not the biggest obstacle. :)
-Restil
Play with my webcams and turn my lights on/off at http://206.54.177.105
But you can turn my Xmas lights on/off via the internet. Check out the interactive webcams at http://206.54.177.105
:)
The Xmas lights are in the living room. Now I've got motivation to do something more impressive for next year.
-Restil
Its a tradeoff between power, protection, and usability.
Cry as I might at the lamebrained nature of something like the WebTV, it does indeed serve a purpose. It provides a virtually idiot proof websurfing experience for those who probably have difficulty operating their remote control. Of course, the webtv is a seriously limited application, but Joe Bob "I've done gotten on that there internet!" is virtually incapable of fucking it up.
Add a more versatile operating system, with multiple input devices, and hard disks, and floppy drives, and Instant messengers, and buggy email programs.. sorry, I mean fully featured email programs that run your attachments automatically.. Add all that in, and you increase usability but decrease protection from yourself. And yes, a lot of users need protection from themselves. WebTV was designed for those very people. Sadly though, they've chosen to wield a chainsaw when they can't handle a butterknife.
This is sad for numerous reasons. Its these very problems that are causing certain small software companies to offer largescale networks where mission critical data will be stored online somewhere. Because its safer there. All these problems we've been causing you create the need for us to provide you with a safe place to put your data. For a nominal monthly fee. And we're virtually certain we won't corrupt it. This is borderline extortion.
So engineer an idiot proof system and shove all the idiots there. They'll still leak out. AOL will make certain that any idiot can get on the internet, and they're doing a damn good job of it I might add. And so the cycle will continue. Idiot users will use insecure operating systems and the worms/viruses will always have fertile breeding ground.
What can ya do?
-Restil
To play with my webcams and lights, check out http://206.54.177.105
Imagine if you will....
You get an email with an executable attachment.
The attachment executes automatically, because we WANT it to do that.
Upon execution, a EULA pops up, with a "licence agreement" that states the following:
- The program being executed will automatically forward itself to a significant number of people using a variety of means
- Some type of modification will take place to your file system.
- By clicking OK you AUTHORIZE this to happen, and claim full responsibility for any damage that
is caused as a result.
And most importantly, if the cancel button is pressed, the program won't execute.
Chances are good that 90% of the people who would be affected by an illegal virus will just as happily click OK without reading anything. The fact of the matter is, the virus will cause the same amount of damage, but the author could probably plaster his name all over it and not fear any legal repercussions.
Of course, there's always the issue of intent. Bottom line, authorized or not, the INTENT of the program was to cause havok of the same nature as a virus. But in the end, it would sure make an idiot out of anyone who spread it.
And maybe, just maybe, it MIGHT result in people actually READING the EULA's. Yeah.. I know.. I'm dreaming.
-Restil
The first sight of it should strike me with awe. Or if not awe, at the very least I should be somewhat surprised. Momentarily after that, I should ponder "How the heck did they DO that!".
This feat does neither. Its a banner. They wrapped it around a building. I'm sure a lot of work went into its creation, but in the end, I remain unimpressed.
And its not that I'm faulting them for their motives. Its just that they need to reach further. The dome has featured many glorious hacks. They need to strive to top those, not suffice to simply let past events overshadow the present ones.
-Restil
Ahh... but this is a FAR more useful attempt than simply encouraging website operators to include cpu intensive java applets on their webpages to create the illusion that older computers are too slow to handle "today's tough demanding applications" like web browsing.
-Restil
Similar theme. Only more integrated into real life. Instead of being encapsulated within a game, make the "game" use actual servers on the internet, use real email systems, allow the user to actually telnet in, etc etc...
Of course, this should be done in a more vitual manner so that others can enjoy the experience at the same time without interfering with others, but of course, interfering with others is part of the game.
I'm going to have to think this over some more....
-Restil
No direct line of sight to the tree, but you can
:)
see the lights draped around the room, controllable via the webpage, and viewed live via webcam.
http://206.54.177.105. The Xmas lights are in the living room. I'm sure you geeks can figure it out.
-Restil