why should you do an FQDN check against a hostname that cannot be valid?
The FQDN test doesn't actually use DNS; it just verifies that the address is in the form ([:dnschar:]+)(\.[:dnschar:]+)+ (translation: at least two words separated by a dot).
The invalid hostname check looks for non-valid characters in the string, ruling out things like foo$$bar.com.
Both are lightweight internal functions, and neither really rejects much more than the other, so it doesn't really matter which order they appear in.
True, but I was assuming that "proscribed" was a misspelling of "prescribed", and wanted to clear up any misconception that there's an accurate list somewhere of every drug order by every doctor for every patient.
If the OP really meant "proscribed", as in "forbidden", then they were correct in stating that those are indeed tracked.
And yet, the drug maker that supplied all these over priced pills to a single doctor in such a short time gets what?
Unless he had the prescriptions filled at Pfizer's loading dock, WTF would you expect them to do about it? For all you know, they might have been the anonymous tipsters that got the whole prosecution started, but I know it's a lot more fun to rant and wildly speculate.
Your irrational hatred for the pharmaceutical companies does nothing to help your credibility.
Supposedly the DEA monitors annual prescription rates of proscribed medications (pain meds, mostly).
My wife only has to put her DEA number on narcotic 'scripts. I don't think there's any national tracking of non-scheduled medication prescriptions, although I wouldn't assert that as a fact.
That's your own choice. I hate spammers, too, but I've chosen to do something about it; you can, too. Trust me - you can dislike them just as much while getting 2-3 spams per day instead of 2500.
Oooh! Good call. I probably should have also thrown in "a Beowulf cluster of Bushes is stupid" for guaranteed moderation Nirvana. Thanks for the pointer!
2^4*5^4*7*13: first prime factorization post on the new guy. Welcome aboard, and here's your hot Soviet grits. Down with Bill, up with Apple, and go Rutan!
"If I have been able to see further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."
-Sir Isacc Newton
P.P.S. Sir Newton said that as a slam against Robert Hooke, who was apparently smallish and contorted. He neglected to finish the sentence with "...and not that runt that keeps disagreeing with me," but that was his intended meaning.
they must go back, throw out all their in-compatible CRAP, and come up with a SINGLE unified format, period.
You say that is if any of all of those media have anything in common besides the fact that they hold data.
VHS is an analog format that sucks for anything digital.
Digital tape is great for many things, but has horrible latency.
Optical disks are great for random access, but have terrible capacities.
CD-Rs were popularized before DVD players were even considered and before the technology that made them possible was affordable to mortals.
By your ideals, the automotive industry is negligent because they didn't all standardize on a 2005 model car for all uses, including agricultural and industrial, in 1980. That would make as much sense as what you propose.
Person: So, what do you do?
Me: I'm a senior programmer in charge of Unix development.
Person: Really? Whenever I try to print from Microsoft, the thingy sounds like that commercial. Can you fix it tonight during supper?
As long as you can actually delete (and not just archive) chats, yeah, that could be cool. I suspect, though, that many people say a lot of things in IM that they'd never put in an email. I have one friend that I still use the "LAN party chat style" with:
Me: sup crack?
Him: i r busy bunghole
I really don't want to see that stuff saved for posterity (or the day I forget to log out of Gmail before my wife uses the computer).
...which is different from it's nice interface for all the other protocols it supports. That is, you get one "buddy list" for AIM/Bonjour/whatever and a different one for Jabber. I really wanted to like Tiger's iChat, but Adium's just too nice to leave.
In theory, the only way to change this flag in OS X is to reboot in single-user mode.
In FreeBSD, the securelevel is set by one of the rc.d scripts that get executed at boot. You could theoretically insert instructions to run before it gets set. Assuming, of course, that the rc.d scripts themselves haven't been made immutable.
You nailed the main drawback: upgrading a running system becomes pretty much impossible without a reboot.
The other one I usually encounter deals with running Aide. Basically, I generate a baseline filesystem checksum database and make that file immutable. When I run periodic verification passes, the list of differences grows over time, and since the baseline can't be altered in any way I can't ever reset it (without a reboot, that is). The workaround is to keep the output of each run in a new immutable file and compare each "diff" with the previous run. Note that with this setup, the size of Aide's database directly can only grow and never shrink. It's a small price to pay, but still one of those little unexpected hurdles.
On a FreeBSD system, you can set the "immutable flag" on a file. Given a high enough system securelevel, that file will be completely resistant to change (including unsetting that flag). This is extremely handy for locking down file signature databases, kernel files, and other likely targets for stealth modification. So long as that portion of the kernel stands intact, the system can never be completely clandestinely owned.
While that's clearly a last-line-of-defense sort of thing, it's certainly a welcome feature. I assume that Linux has a similar mechanism, although I haven't personally used it.
...but back then it was named aide(1). It is a sequel to tripwire(1) - also an excellent choice - and makes a nice adjunct to security(7) and periodic(8). Highly recommended; a real page-turner.
Google had previously acquired Blogger, a popular blogging tool that uses the Atom specification to syndicate the contents of blogs created on the Blogger platform.
...and we all know that Google's poor, beleaguered programmers will be incapable of altering the source of the application they own to transmit two. different. formats! of syndication data. That'd be like expecting them to support multiple locales or offer some kind of an aggregated news service. Why, oh why, must we constantly demand the impossible of our heroes?
Or they could just let an intern hack something up one weekend. Either way.
DRM is coming (Or is already here), one way or another, and is better to work on creating something done right, or to object to it on moral grounds?
I prefer 3) shun it like the plague and explain to friends and family why they should, too. Why do we assume that Digital Restrictions Management is coming? People have been spoiled by copyable material for years, now - I see no reason to believe that the population is going to universally give up the ability to copy an album for friends or lend a movie to their parents.
People keep saying it, and it's true: DRM is fundamentally, impossibly flawed. You can't give someone a key and simultaneously tell them they can't use it. You might not. Your sister might not. Some kid in Finland, or Brazil, or Oklahoma definitely will, and there's no putting the cat back in the bag.
Eventually, some intelligent businessman or board of directors will realize that people absolutely hate being inconvenienced. As a whole, I'd say that people are far more likely to do the Right Thing when they aren't being treated like thieves. There'll always be some idiot who tries to ruin it for everyone, but that guy can't be stopped. It's not worthwhile to destroy your relationship with 99.99% of your customers to try to trick that one last untrickable.
None of this is new, but pretty much everything that can be said about restrictions management has already been said.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one way to end a headache. She may wish to make sure her will is up-to-date, though.
There's nothing wrong with that, but you can hardly blame me for assuming it was a misspelling. This is Slashdot, after all. :-)
Thanks! It kind of wrote itself.
why should you do an FQDN check against a hostname that cannot be valid?
The FQDN test doesn't actually use DNS; it just verifies that the address is in the form ([:dnschar:]+)(\.[:dnschar:]+)+ (translation: at least two words separated by a dot).
The invalid hostname check looks for non-valid characters in the string, ruling out things like foo$$bar.com.
Both are lightweight internal functions, and neither really rejects much more than the other, so it doesn't really matter which order they appear in.
If the OP really meant "proscribed", as in "forbidden", then they were correct in stating that those are indeed tracked.
Unless he had the prescriptions filled at Pfizer's loading dock, WTF would you expect them to do about it? For all you know, they might have been the anonymous tipsters that got the whole prosecution started, but I know it's a lot more fun to rant and wildly speculate.
Your irrational hatred for the pharmaceutical companies does nothing to help your credibility.
His son, Mach II, wrote 144,000 during the same time period.
They had nothing on Dr. See. His numbers were relatively unfathomable.
My wife only has to put her DEA number on narcotic 'scripts. I don't think there's any national tracking of non-scheduled medication prescriptions, although I wouldn't assert that as a fact.
That's your own choice. I hate spammers, too, but I've chosen to do something about it; you can, too. Trust me - you can dislike them just as much while getting 2-3 spams per day instead of 2500.
Must... resist... temptation...
Oooh! Good call. I probably should have also thrown in "a Beowulf cluster of Bushes is stupid" for guaranteed moderation Nirvana. Thanks for the pointer!
Did I miss anything important?
-Sir Isacc Newton
P.P.S. Sir Newton said that as a slam against Robert Hooke, who was apparently smallish and contorted. He neglected to finish the sentence with "...and not that runt that keeps disagreeing with me," but that was his intended meaning.
You say that is if any of all of those media have anything in common besides the fact that they hold data.
VHS is an analog format that sucks for anything digital.
Digital tape is great for many things, but has horrible latency.
Optical disks are great for random access, but have terrible capacities.
CD-Rs were popularized before DVD players were even considered and before the technology that made them possible was affordable to mortals.
By your ideals, the automotive industry is negligent because they didn't all standardize on a 2005 model car for all uses, including agricultural and industrial, in 1980. That would make as much sense as what you propose.
Person: So, what do you do?
Me: I'm a senior programmer in charge of Unix development.
Person: Really? Whenever I try to print from Microsoft, the thingy sounds like that commercial. Can you fix it tonight during supper?
Suck it up, Math Boy. We've all got our problems.
I didn't see anything about dropping performance, just cycles. What are you alluding to?
Be amused. I'm capable of emitting proper grammar when appropriate - although my editor may possible disagree.
Me: sup crack?
Him: i r busy bunghole
I really don't want to see that stuff saved for posterity (or the day I forget to log out of Gmail before my wife uses the computer).
...which is different from it's nice interface for all the other protocols it supports. That is, you get one "buddy list" for AIM/Bonjour/whatever and a different one for Jabber. I really wanted to like Tiger's iChat, but Adium's just too nice to leave.
You just can't go wrong quoting TMBG on Slashdot. That's nice; none of my "normal" friends have heard of them.
In FreeBSD, the securelevel is set by one of the rc.d scripts that get executed at boot. You could theoretically insert instructions to run before it gets set. Assuming, of course, that the rc.d scripts themselves haven't been made immutable.
You nailed the main drawback: upgrading a running system becomes pretty much impossible without a reboot.
The other one I usually encounter deals with running Aide. Basically, I generate a baseline filesystem checksum database and make that file immutable. When I run periodic verification passes, the list of differences grows over time, and since the baseline can't be altered in any way I can't ever reset it (without a reboot, that is). The workaround is to keep the output of each run in a new immutable file and compare each "diff" with the previous run. Note that with this setup, the size of Aide's database directly can only grow and never shrink. It's a small price to pay, but still one of those little unexpected hurdles.
While that's clearly a last-line-of-defense sort of thing, it's certainly a welcome feature. I assume that Linux has a similar mechanism, although I haven't personally used it.
...but back then it was named aide(1). It is a sequel to tripwire(1) - also an excellent choice - and makes a nice adjunct to security(7) and periodic(8). Highly recommended; a real page-turner.
...and we all know that Google's poor, beleaguered programmers will be incapable of altering the source of the application they own to transmit two. different. formats! of syndication data. That'd be like expecting them to support multiple locales or offer some kind of an aggregated news service. Why, oh why, must we constantly demand the impossible of our heroes?
Or they could just let an intern hack something up one weekend. Either way.
<western>We don't like yer kind 'round here.</western>
I prefer 3) shun it like the plague and explain to friends and family why they should, too. Why do we assume that Digital Restrictions Management is coming? People have been spoiled by copyable material for years, now - I see no reason to believe that the population is going to universally give up the ability to copy an album for friends or lend a movie to their parents.
People keep saying it, and it's true: DRM is fundamentally, impossibly flawed. You can't give someone a key and simultaneously tell them they can't use it. You might not. Your sister might not. Some kid in Finland, or Brazil, or Oklahoma definitely will, and there's no putting the cat back in the bag.
Eventually, some intelligent businessman or board of directors will realize that people absolutely hate being inconvenienced. As a whole, I'd say that people are far more likely to do the Right Thing when they aren't being treated like thieves. There'll always be some idiot who tries to ruin it for everyone, but that guy can't be stopped. It's not worthwhile to destroy your relationship with 99.99% of your customers to try to trick that one last untrickable.
None of this is new, but pretty much everything that can be said about restrictions management has already been said.