section "Motivation", paragraph 2 both types reject commonly accepted societal norms, standards or proportions
well, also readers of slashdot (part of them) can become "rational based terrorists" - just look at "Your right online" section of slashdot.
but that's question of how you define "terrorist" term: if you define it as "everybody actively fighting against establishment", than almost everyone who speaks some criticism is terrorist.
4th paragraph ... commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software products can easily be obtained to conduct cyberterrorism...
such tools (software for cracking systems) is mostly not commercial because cracking systems is in almost every country illegal thus firm can't make officialy money from it.
such tools are mostly exploits created by hackers (to help hunt bugs in software to finaly fix them - such exploits are mostly widely shared (see bug-traq mailing list as example) to speed up process of fixing the bug) rewriten/"enhanced" by crackers to help them crack. exploits can be also developed by crackers entirely and such exploits can be keps in "secret" so inventor can use them for a long time (such exploit uses hole in system which is unknown to anyone else).
so to sum it up: cracking tools are mostly for free and publicaly available on internet. it is also common that source code of such tools is also available.
3rd paragraph Only a select number of terrorist groups and few state sponsors are likely to possess the necessary motivation and capability in the spheres of...
at the end of comments on 3rd paragraph i want to say, that "cyber terrorism" is not only case in military subject (attacking enemy's infrastructure during war,...). it is also economical (attacking competitor, stealing information from competitor,...) subject and also social (strealing private data of citizen, causing wide spread fear (like recent mellisa virus - IMHO it is security related),...).
so after all i think that using term "cyber terorism" is not very correct. better will be term "computer security" - it maybe do not sounds that "cool" but is more correct
3rd paragraph Only a select number of terrorist groups and few state sponsors are likely to possess the necessary motivation and capability in the spheres of...
i have to say that cyber attacks can be performed by various peole and organisations with various level of damage and with various level of requirements on attackers side (as many alredy pointed out).
attack requirements
network connection or physical access to target system
computer (PC or whatever with some software) and connection device (modem, ethernet card,...)
knowlege (either attackers own (which is most dangerous) or borrowed (in case of script kiddies))
luck (sometimes?)
everythink else (like traitor, back-doors in target,...) are bonuses which ease attacker's job
3rd paragraph Only a select number of terrorist groups and few state sponsors are likely to possess the necessary motivation and capability in the spheres of...
i have to say that cyber attacks can be performed by various peole and organisations with various level of damage and with various level of requirements on attackers side (as many alredy pointed out).
how can be attack performed
as mentioned earlier, to perform attack, attacker need some sort of connection to victim's system.
host conected to Internet can be attacked by anyone which too have connection to Internet. host serving as dial-in server can be attacked by anyone who has modem and know phone numbers to such server. etc. etc.
another step is what attacker wants to do with target system. it strongly depends and what is the target machine (is it PC? which OS it runs? which services are running? who's (and how good/bad) is the administrators?...). generaly, attacker can disable (or try to disable) target system - this is called DOS (denial of service) attack. it can lead for example to unoperational aerial defence or disabled communication between enemy's units or just less performance of system in which target machine is utilized. another thing is to gain control of target machine. in this case, taget system can be used for further attacks, can intercept enemy's operations (like taking gun from enemy's soldier and the using it too shoot him and his colegues), steal information or make some other interception.
3rd paragraph Only a select number of terrorist groups and few state sponsors are likely to possess the necessary motivation and capability in the spheres of...
i have to say that cyber attacks can be performed by various peole and organisations with various level of damage and with various level of requirements on attackers side (as many alredy pointed out).
who can perform attack
aslmost anyone can perfomr attack. only requirement is that attacker need at least some "cripled" (via firewall or whatever) connection to victim's network (via Internet, via dial-in modems, maybe somethink else) - but that's technical. i want to talk about people - real people.
some first i mention script-kiddies: those are ussualy young people which find some "cool cracking tools" somewhere on the net (it's not that dificult, see for example bug-traq mailing list or some other resources./ers pointed out here) and are hot to try them. they choose some "cool" target (nasa, pentagon, white house,...) and launch those tools (ussualy called exploits). this kind of "cyper terrorists" IMHO do not deserver such name: terrorist. they are just curious and it's only question of admin if he keep up with recent fixes - because with doing so he can disable almost all such script kiddies from causing any damage to the system.
then, there are hackers. those are peole, which "know how to do that, how it works, what can be done with it". thay brake into systems mostly to just find out and mostly not causing any damage. those even can't be called "criminals".
third, there are crackers. generaly, cracker are hackers which causes damage (and they want to cause damage). crackers are cracking mostly because it's fun for them or because they are paid to do so (in such case, they are a) disabling systems and/or b) stealing infomration mostly).
and at last there are groups of people which are making activities related to bypass security of IT systems: terrorist, thief and spy agencies (can be funded by state or they can be "private").
most dangerous (IMHO) seems to be the last two mentioned: crackers and organisations which utilizes crackers.
Ironically, the biggest impediment to going back to Unix is that a few of the faculty don't know Unix and don't want to learn.
i think it's not ironic but sad.
because there are mostly more advantages when moving avay from MS than disadvantages but people are staying with MS just because they are not willing to learn anything new.
and in academic it's not just sad but disastrous!!!
i've read just "Surely You Must Be Joking Mr. Feynman!" book and i do not remember teller being mentioned there...
... but using astalavista babe search engine i found this: From Part IV "Los Alamos" - teller is mentioned there, but no feynman's opinion on him atomic memories - some guy there leaves a note: teller was profesor... (Ctrl+F and type teller:) [this is some survey or what about nuclear bombs, not related to feynman or teller directly]
seeing the content of firts link it would be fine to read the book again, maybe there is something more about teller from feynman.
back in 40s when nuclear bomb have been developed at los alamos (i hope i remember it well:) scientists there were asked to patent every idea related to use of nuclear power.
there were a lot of ideas
for example richard p. feynman comes with nuclear airplane.
while talking about richard p. faynman: there is a book with his memories. it is very good while it is funny and it teach something at the same time.
research about (almost) anythink can teach us a lot. that's why i don't like when scientific researches are canceled for "political" reasons.
sure some things can wipe us out (like DNA tempering, nuclear reactions,...). but banning such projects can cause just grater probability of such dead result.
we should not ban research. we have to pay attention at who researches such things (and how).
like any other information: information is not good or bad. the use of such information can be good or bad.
i compared (in another post) the duo of PC+Windows to car+driver (driver as live person which drives the car:) . while i'm aware it's not perfec comparison i think the one used by FrM$ (you cited) is flawed: when talking about car+engine then in comparison to PC better equivalent of engine is CPU!
but anyway... such equivalents/comparisons are never very exact. people often forget that equivalents/comparisons are used for making something more clear. not to exactly defines the actual thing.
scenario you mentioned (you will not be able to buy windoze along with your computer, it will have to be purchased separately and installed by the user) sounds sweet to me.
mostly because i think that buying PC with preinstaled OS is like buying car with driver bundled. so than you are maybe not content with bundled one, but while you alredy have OS/driver, you are lazy to purchase new and better one.
it also forces reselers to reconsider bundling practises (maybe they will bundle after such action but you will have more than one item long list to choose from).
in general, such move would greatly speed up healing proces of IT industry.
No one has began to touch Windows on the corporate desktop. These systems (and all the work-at-home machines) are still willingly locked-in to the Microsoft monopoly by their owners.
if the case is about present (side question: presnet meant by case start date or present by right now?) situation, then MS can be found innocent. if the case is about past, then MS should be found guilty.
that's the diference mentioned by Evro.
also i have to express that i think MS will kill itself. it just takes IMHO too much time (about 5 years).
Every time somebody mentions how to compile a kernel it's different - perhaps that's part of the problem.
what problem? if you are compiling kernel, you can mak it as/usr/src/linux/README sugests: make {config,manuconfig,xconfig,oldconfig} (depends on what you prefer and need) make dep make {zImabe,bzImage,zdisk,zlilo} (depends on whether you want boot disk or normal kernel and how big will be that kernel) make modules (if you want modules) make modules_install (-"-) some other steps (like vi/etc/lilo.conf; lilo, etc.)
if you know what you are doing and if you are doing something not that commnon as described in mentioned README, you can do a lot diferent steps in order to make kernel
question: why there is (almost) no demand for non windows PCs?
i would prefer people solve theire problems themselves (like you and me "solved" MS problem by avoiding theire products) but (at least in coputer industry, but as i'm seeing TV commercials, in other markets and even in other things than markets too) people can't solve theire problems because they do know nothing about problem (sometimes they even do not know they have problem).
i personaly fight such problems speading information and my opinions but that's not always enought. and i'm doing it not only to help others but also to help myself to get rid of such stuff.
that's why i'm awaiting some solution from mentioned case. maybe i'm too optimistic to think that politicians and lawyers can solve technological problem (yes, MS "monopoly" is technological problem for me, because thanks to this monopoly a lot of wonderfull technologies did not make it into market at all). but i think that MS compromised itself quite enought the way even suits understands that they [MS] are The Bad Guys (tm)
Slashdot Mirror
please excuse typos and grammar: i'm hurrying and i'm not native english speaker
both types reject commonly accepted societal norms, standards or proportions
well, also readers of slashdot (part of them) can become "rational based terrorists" - just look at "Your right online" section of slashdot.
but that's question of how you define "terrorist" term:
if you define it as "everybody actively fighting against establishment", than almost everyone who speaks some criticism is terrorist.
such tools (software for cracking systems) is mostly not commercial because cracking systems is in almost every country illegal thus firm can't make officialy money from it.
such tools are mostly exploits created by hackers (to help hunt bugs in software to finaly fix them - such exploits are mostly widely shared (see bug-traq mailing list as example) to speed up process of fixing the bug) rewriten/"enhanced" by crackers to help them crack. exploits can be also developed by crackers entirely and such exploits can be keps in "secret" so inventor can use them for a long time (such exploit uses hole in system which is unknown to anyone else).
so to sum it up: cracking tools are mostly for free and publicaly available on internet. it is also common that source code of such tools is also available.
Only a select number of terrorist groups and few state sponsors are likely to possess the necessary motivation and capability in the spheres of
at the end of comments on 3rd paragraph i want to say, that "cyber terrorism" is not only case in military subject (attacking enemy's infrastructure during war, ...). it is also economical (attacking competitor, stealing information from competitor, ...) subject and also social (strealing private data of citizen, causing wide spread fear (like recent mellisa virus - IMHO it is security related), ...).
so after all i think that using term "cyber terorism" is not very correct. better will be term "computer security" - it maybe do not sounds that "cool" but is more correct
Only a select number of terrorist groups and few state sponsors are likely to possess the necessary motivation and capability in the spheres of
i have to say that cyber attacks can be performed by various peole and organisations with various level of damage and with various level of requirements on attackers side (as many alredy pointed out).
attack requirements
- network connection or physical access to target system
- computer (PC or whatever with some software) and connection device (modem, ethernet card,
...) - knowlege (either attackers own (which is most dangerous) or borrowed (in case of script kiddies))
- luck (sometimes?)
everythink else (like traitor, back-doors in target,Only a select number of terrorist groups and few state sponsors are likely to possess the necessary motivation and capability in the spheres of
i have to say that cyber attacks can be performed by various peole and organisations with various level of damage and with various level of requirements on attackers side (as many alredy pointed out).
how can be attack performed
as mentioned earlier, to perform attack, attacker need some sort of connection to victim's system.
host conected to Internet can be attacked by anyone which too have connection to Internet.
host serving as dial-in server can be attacked by anyone who has modem and know phone numbers to such server.
etc. etc.
another step is what attacker wants to do with target system. it strongly depends and what is the target machine (is it PC? which OS it runs? which services are running? who's (and how good/bad) is the administrators? ...).
generaly, attacker can disable (or try to disable) target system - this is called DOS (denial of service) attack. it can lead for example to unoperational aerial defence or disabled communication between enemy's units or just less performance of system in which target machine is utilized.
another thing is to gain control of target machine. in this case, taget system can be used for further attacks, can intercept enemy's operations (like taking gun from enemy's soldier and the using it too shoot him and his colegues), steal information or make some other interception.
Only a select number of terrorist groups and few state sponsors are likely to possess the necessary motivation and capability in the spheres of
i have to say that cyber attacks can be performed by various peole and organisations with various level of damage and with various level of requirements on attackers side (as many alredy pointed out).
who can perform attack
aslmost anyone can perfomr attack. only requirement is that attacker need at least some "cripled" (via firewall or whatever) connection to victim's network (via Internet, via dial-in modems, maybe somethink else) - but that's technical. i want to talk about people - real people.
some first i mention script-kiddies: those are ussualy young people which find some "cool cracking tools" somewhere on the net (it's not that dificult, see for example bug-traq mailing list or some other resources ./ers pointed out here) and are hot to try them. they choose some "cool" target (nasa, pentagon, white house, ...) and launch those tools (ussualy called exploits).
this kind of "cyper terrorists" IMHO do not deserver such name: terrorist. they are just curious and it's only question of admin if he keep up with recent fixes - because with doing so he can disable almost all such script kiddies from causing any damage to the system.
then, there are hackers. those are peole, which "know how to do that, how it works, what can be done with it". thay brake into systems mostly to just find out and mostly not causing any damage. those even can't be called "criminals".
third, there are crackers. generaly, cracker are hackers which causes damage (and they want to cause damage). crackers are cracking mostly because it's fun for them or because they are paid to do so (in such case, they are a) disabling systems and/or b) stealing infomration mostly).
and at last there are groups of people which are making activities related to bypass security of IT systems: terrorist, thief and spy agencies (can be funded by state or they can be "private").
most dangerous (IMHO) seems to be the last two mentioned: crackers and organisations which utilizes crackers.
while i will have more comments. i will split them into more pieces by replying to this comment :)
so corel can't distribute such distro?
if you expose colege/university student to UNIX what is the probability of him staying with UNIX?
if you expose colege/university student to M$ what is the probability of him staying with M$?
i think that probability in the first one scenario is greater.
reasons: IMHO more freedom
little stories like that were the reason why i like "surely, you must be joking ..." very much.
now i'm hunting some more books about R.P.F.
i think it's not ironic but sad.
because there are mostly more advantages when moving avay from MS than disadvantages but people are staying with MS just because they are not willing to learn anything new.
and in academic it's not just sad but disastrous!!!
... but using astalavista babe search engine i found this: ... (Ctrl+F and type teller :) [this is some survey or what about nuclear bombs, not related to feynman or teller directly]
From Part IV "Los Alamos" - teller is mentioned there, but no feynman's opinion on him
atomic memories - some guy there leaves a note: teller was profesor
seeing the content of firts link it would be fine to read the book again, maybe there is something more about teller from feynman.
maybe somebody relse emembers better?
yeah. probability of hitting a site related to sex is very high using this [ www.>random word<.{com,org,net,...} ] technique.
yeah. probability of hitting a site related to sex is very high using this [ www..{com,org,net,...} ] technique.
there were a lot of ideas
for example richard p. feynman comes with nuclear airplane.
while talking about richard p. faynman: there is a book with his memories. it is very good while it is funny and it teach something at the same time.
sure some things can wipe us out (like DNA tempering, nuclear reactions, ...). but banning such projects can cause just grater probability of such dead result.
we should not ban research. we have to pay attention at who researches such things (and how).
like any other information: information is not good or bad. the use of such information can be good or bad.
i know, we can argue about the "put together" and "by Linux" but i want to keep the post short so i used shorter but less precise words.
none.
and i hope it'll kill none in the future too (or better: it'll kill no good UNIX flavor :).
each UNIX flavor being somehow diferent can suits diferent needs thus more UNIX flavors then suits wide range of needs. that's definitely good.
but i have another question: what does linux causes?
when talking about car+engine then in comparison to PC better equivalent of engine is CPU!
but anyway ... such equivalents/comparisons are never very exact.
people often forget that equivalents/comparisons are used for making something more clear. not to exactly defines the actual thing.
mostly because i think that buying PC with preinstaled OS is like buying car with driver bundled.
so than you are maybe not content with bundled one, but while you alredy have OS/driver, you are lazy to purchase new and better one.
it also forces reselers to reconsider bundling practises (maybe they will bundle after such action but you will have more than one item long list to choose from).
in general, such move would greatly speed up healing proces of IT industry.
like (some) apes are locked to trees?
:)
sorry folks ...
but
if the case is about present (side question: presnet meant by case start date or present by right now?) situation, then MS can be found innocent.
if the case is about past, then MS should be found guilty.
that's the diference mentioned by Evro.
also i have to express that i think MS will kill itself. it just takes IMHO too much time (about 5 years).
what problem? if you are compiling kernel, you can mak it as /usr/src/linux/README sugests: /etc/lilo.conf; lilo, etc.)
make {config,manuconfig,xconfig,oldconfig} (depends on what you prefer and need)
make dep
make {zImabe,bzImage,zdisk,zlilo} (depends on whether you want boot disk or normal kernel and how big will be that kernel)
make modules (if you want modules)
make modules_install (-"-)
some other steps (like vi
if you know what you are doing and if you are doing something not that commnon as described in mentioned README, you can do a lot diferent steps in order to make kernel
why there is (almost) no demand for non windows PCs?
i would prefer people solve theire problems themselves (like you and me "solved" MS problem by avoiding theire products) but (at least in coputer industry, but as i'm seeing TV commercials, in other markets and even in other things than markets too) people can't solve theire problems because they do know nothing about problem (sometimes they even do not know they have problem).
i personaly fight such problems speading information and my opinions but that's not always enought.
and i'm doing it not only to help others but also to help myself to get rid of such stuff.
that's why i'm awaiting some solution from mentioned case. maybe i'm too optimistic to think that politicians and lawyers can solve technological problem (yes, MS "monopoly" is technological problem for me, because thanks to this monopoly a lot of wonderfull technologies did not make it into market at all). but i think that MS compromised itself quite enought the way even suits understands that they [MS] are The Bad Guys (tm)