For "simple" stuff, MySQL is (supposedly) quicker than PostgreSQL but you might want to check the following link for just why MySQL sucks for non-toy apps
I'm at university in the UK, and I can sympathise with the problems this can cause... For 100 ukp we get a permenent ethernet connection in our room, which is very tasty.
However there is a drawback. Because universities in the UK are now charged for their transatlantic bandwidth, the charges get passed down to us, on a per MB basis: each quarter, you get 5 ukp worth of credit; transfers are about 2 pence per MB.
During November, some loser decided he would smurf me though, didn't he....using American broadcast IP's. As I had a static IP, this was an inconvenience to say the least... The result: 25 ukp worth of ICMP charging! But kernel loggin on ICMP comes in handy when you have to show your sysadmin proof...even if it did mean being assigned an IP.
Making the "victim" pay for being DoS'd is a major flaw, which if protocols become metered, is going to become a major problem to the internet on which we work.
To some extent, yes. Unless you can be sure of who will be downloading the code, then you have placed it in the hands of untrusted parties. You have released it into the wild, and anybody, be they curious or malicious, can run propogate them.
Snippets of source code, inter-mingled with an explanation of what is going on, could be useful, but posting the complete source, or especially binaries, can only be viewed as irresponsible - you risk the chance of creating a new type of script kiddie: nobody wants that:)
The reality is that viruses serve little purpose; sure they can be intreguing for the curious, but it's playing with fire, and it only takes one malicious user, or one slight coding mistake (ahem, Morris, ahem) to wreak havoc.
As source code, I wouldn't say that the authors of these programs are necessarily the "bad guy"; the code can provide interesting insights into security flaws.
In the case of a virus, if the developer keeps the code within a quarantined environment, which he has authorisation to be using, it seems legitimate. As long as he does not distribute the code to unstrusted partied, or release a binary into the wild, then he has not really done any damage, it is when this boundary is crossed that he could be held responsible (to some extent) for damage.
Do you think it's right that the government should be allowed to "make an example" of us?
If "us" refers to crackers, then yes. I stand by my view that if you break into a system, then change the HTML, you really must have an urge to experience the justice system.
Just look at the Attrition (or any other) mirror. Do these pages, complete with their 31337 talk demonstrate any sort of desirable qualities?
Someone who defaces a government web site should get a small fine to cover the costs of restoring the web site. No jail time, and no forfeiture of other civil rights should be imposed.
I'm pretty sure anybody who hosts a web page, and has been the victim of these attacks will disagree with you. You don't have to break in, do you? No matter how "cool" it may look to your fellow 3133 h4x0r friends.
No! You've got it completely backwards. Nah, I'm pretty sure that's the right way round. You break the law, you get punished. Maybe 15 months is harsh for changing a website, but come on...nobody is forcing you to.
I admit to not knowing that much about this case, and don't have time to register for the NYT; but what that cracker did was illegal - so surely he should be punished?
I'm all for looking around interesting boxes on the net, but surely he must have known that whitehouse.gov is another matter, and he must have known beforehand that the consequences would be very severe.
IMHO, in a more general sense, if you are choose to compromise a computer, that's one thing, but when you change the HTML, that is just plain stupid. It's the electronic equivalent of putting graffiti on a wall: if your real information (name, address etc) becomes linked to your handle, you are in the shit. The electronic sense is even more stupid though, there are logs.
It also seems that an example is being made here. If you tread on the toes of any.gov or.mil, it is highly likely that one day, you will be caught, especially if you are in the US.
Security has two sides: learning it, and becoming extremely knowledgable to the point where you are hightly employable, and the more sinister, less knowlegable side of defacing web pages. I'll let you figure out which one to choose.
I admit to not knowing that much about this case, and don't have time to register for the NYT; but what that cracker did was illegal - so surely he should be punished?
I'm all for looking around interesting boxes on the net, but surely he must have known that whitehouse.gov is another matter, and he must have known beforehand that the consequences would be very severe.
IMHO, in a more general sense, if you are choose to compromise a computer, that's one thing, but when you change the HTML, that is just plain stupid. It's the electronic equivalent of putting graffiti on a wall: if your real information (name, address etc) becomes linked to your handle, you are in the shit. The electronic sense is even more stupid though, there are logs.
It also seems that an example is being made here. If you tread on the toes of any.gov or.mil, it is highly likely that one day, you will be caught, especially if you are in the US.
Security has two sides: learning it, and becoming extremely knowledgable to the point where you are hightly employable, and the more sinister side of defacing web pages. I'll let you figure out which one to choose.
Maybe I'm having an off day, but is this funny? - auto accident; register voters; static electricity; struct by_lightning; - hahah, my sides...help Sure I've seen most of this before....and it was just as stale then... I mean come on, a page of smileys?!
The GPL'd human code - muhaha, sedate me. Anagrams...jesus, I need to sit down...
This is funny. So is this. In fact, most of attrition's gallery is.
But the GNU humour page?! Come on... I laughed harder when I rm -rf'd/usr/lib.
Good point - reading some of the posts during meta-moderation makes me realise that all too frequently a good idea gets marked as being off-topic because it, say, takes a light hearted view, or looks at things a different way...
Couldn't the/. engine grep for first post?:) hmmmm, the idea about making a special moderation selection for first-posts is a good one, it's just a pity that it takes a moderation point to do so.
Why do people bother wasting moderation points on First Posts? We all know that a post saying "yey I'm first" is pointless, so surely it would be more use to emphasise the good posts than class something as being Offtopic, which is blatant anyway?
Ouch. Apart from the fact that the day-glo yellow looks terrible, I can't help but notice a stunning resemblance between AV's portal headings and yahoo.com's, and in fact every other portal site around. Surely having so many of these sites, all containing the same mass of nested links is totally redundant, especially when it is far simpler to use the Bookmark function of a web-browser?
Slashdot Mirror
Sigh... perhaps you should go and work out what Overture is. It is not a "search engine" in the normal everyday sense of the word.
The best place to discuss Phoenix is at the Mozillazine Phoenix forums.
Extensions are available here -- including radial context and mouse gestures.
Themes are available here and there's a beautiful page of similar-but-different themes here.
For "simple" stuff, MySQL is (supposedly) quicker than PostgreSQL but you might want to check the following link for just why MySQL sucks for non-toy apps
Where can I get a wife that will go dumpster-diving for computer hardware with me?
/. :-)
Change your name to Taco and post a story to
Google's Cache of the page
Not totally sure if it's what you want, but TweakUI (part of XP Powertools) handles something like this.
:)
In the General->Focus screen there is an option "Prevent applications from stealing focus".
According to this, MS has decided to pull them for now though (speculate speculate
You can still get them at the usual places, download.com etc.
This confirms my initial suspicion. Anonymous cowards should not exist.
It could help reduce the number of first posts (they'll never vanish), and make people accountable for...well....strange comments like this.
[ I actually picked up the word "tasty" when I was in the States....though what difference this makes I have _no_ idea. ]
:)
...But kernel loggin on ICMP...
...even if it did mean being assigned an IP....
:/
ok...."kernel logging"
and
assigned a new IP
---------
Damit I should get some sleep...can't see what I'm typing...
I'm at university in the UK, and I can sympathise with the problems this can cause... For 100 ukp we get a permenent ethernet connection in our room, which is very tasty.
However there is a drawback. Because universities in the UK are now charged for their transatlantic bandwidth, the charges get passed down to us, on a per MB basis: each quarter, you get 5 ukp worth of credit; transfers are about 2 pence per MB.
During November, some loser decided he would smurf me though, didn't he....using American broadcast IP's. As I had a static IP, this was an inconvenience to say the least... The result: 25 ukp worth of ICMP charging! But kernel loggin on ICMP comes in handy when you have to show your sysadmin proof...even if it did mean being assigned an IP.
Making the "victim" pay for being DoS'd is a major flaw, which if protocols become metered, is going to become a major problem to the internet on which we work.
"I couldn't agree more."
To some extent, yes. Unless you can be sure of who will be downloading the code, then you have placed it in the hands of untrusted parties. You have released it into the wild, and anybody, be they curious or malicious, can run propogate them.
:)
Snippets of source code, inter-mingled with an explanation of what is going on, could be useful, but posting the complete source, or especially binaries, can only be viewed as irresponsible - you risk the chance of creating a new type of script kiddie: nobody wants that
The reality is that viruses serve little purpose; sure they can be intreguing for the curious, but it's playing with fire, and it only takes one malicious user, or one slight coding mistake (ahem, Morris, ahem) to wreak havoc.
As source code, I wouldn't say that the authors of these programs are necessarily the "bad guy"; the code can provide interesting insights into security flaws.
In the case of a virus, if the developer keeps the code within a quarantined environment, which he has authorisation to be using, it seems legitimate. As long as he does not distribute the code to unstrusted partied, or release a binary into the wild, then he has not really done any damage, it is when this boundary is crossed that he could be held responsible (to some extent) for damage.
Do you think it's right that the government should be allowed to "make an example" of us?
If "us" refers to crackers, then yes.
I stand by my view that if you break into a system, then change the HTML, you really must have an urge to experience the justice system.
Just look at the Attrition (or any other) mirror. Do these pages, complete with their 31337 talk demonstrate any sort of desirable qualities?
Someone who defaces a government web site should get a small fine to cover the costs of restoring the web site. No jail time, and no forfeiture of other civil rights should be imposed.
I'm pretty sure anybody who hosts a web page, and has been the victim of these attacks will disagree with you. You don't have to break in, do you? No matter how "cool" it may look to your fellow 3133 h4x0r friends.
No! You've got it completely backwards.
Nah, I'm pretty sure that's the right way round. You break the law, you get punished. Maybe 15 months is harsh for changing a website, but come on...nobody is forcing you to.
I admit to not knowing that much about this case, and don't have time to register for the NYT; but what that cracker did was illegal - so surely he should be punished?
.gov or .mil, it is highly likely that one day, you will be caught, especially if you are in the US.
I'm all for looking around interesting boxes on the net, but surely he must have known that whitehouse.gov is another matter, and he must have known beforehand that the consequences would be very severe.
IMHO, in a more general sense, if you are choose to compromise a computer, that's one thing, but when you change the HTML, that is just plain stupid. It's the electronic equivalent of putting graffiti on a wall: if your real information (name, address etc) becomes linked to your handle, you are in the shit. The electronic sense is even more stupid though, there are logs.
It also seems that an example is being made here. If you tread on the toes of any
Security has two sides: learning it, and becoming extremely knowledgable to the point where you are hightly employable, and the more sinister, less knowlegable side of defacing web pages. I'll let you figure out which one to choose.
To me, this seems like justice.
Aieeee, the time.
I admit to not knowing that much about this case, and don't have time to register for the NYT; but what that cracker did was illegal - so surely he should be punished?
.gov or .mil, it is highly likely that one day, you will be caught, especially if you are in the US.
I'm all for looking around interesting boxes on the net, but surely he must have known that whitehouse.gov is another matter, and he must have known beforehand that the consequences would be very severe.
IMHO, in a more general sense, if you are choose to compromise a computer, that's one thing, but when you change the HTML, that is just plain stupid. It's the electronic equivalent of putting graffiti on a wall: if your real information (name, address etc) becomes linked to your handle, you are in the shit. The electronic sense is even more stupid though, there are logs.
It also seems that an example is being made here. If you tread on the toes of any
Security has two sides: learning it, and becoming extremely knowledgable to the point where you are hightly employable, and the more sinister side of defacing web pages. I'll let you figure out which one to choose.
To me, this seems like justice.
Aieeee, the time.
Maybe I'm having an off day, but is this funny?
/usr/lib.
-
auto accident;
register voters;
static electricity;
struct by_lightning;
-
hahah, my sides...help
Sure I've seen most of this before....and it was just as stale then... I mean come on, a page of smileys?!
The GPL'd human code - muhaha, sedate me.
Anagrams...jesus, I need to sit down...
This is funny. So is this. In fact, most of attrition's gallery is.
But the GNU humour page?! Come on... I laughed harder when I rm -rf'd
Good point - reading some of the posts during meta-moderation makes me realise that all too frequently a good idea gets marked as being off-topic because it, say, takes a light hearted view, or looks at things a different way...
/. engine grep for first post? :) hmmmm, the idea about making a special moderation selection for first-posts is a good one, it's just a pity that it takes a moderation point to do so.
:)
Couldn't the
btw, how is ~0 less than -1 ?!
Why do people bother wasting moderation points on First Posts? We all know that a post saying "yey I'm first" is pointless, so surely it would be more use to emphasise the good posts than class something as being Offtopic, which is blatant anyway?
Just my thoughts....
Ouch. Apart from the fact that the day-glo yellow looks terrible, I can't help but notice a stunning resemblance between AV's portal headings and yahoo.com's, and in fact every other portal site around.
Surely having so many of these sites, all containing the same mass of nested links is totally redundant, especially when it is far simpler to use the Bookmark function of a web-browser?
- h2so4