Actually I checked at a client's office this morning; they have a G4 tower running Mac OS X Server acting as their file server and NAT router, but it's pointing DNS to external servers that have been patched. So no, not quite that many.;-)
Au contraire - classic Mac OS was vastly more secure than most Linux distributions at the time, at least from external attacks. Classic Mac OS was never secure from local users with physical access to the box, and of course there have been security holes here and there. However, when RedHat was shipping with dozens of ports open and who knows what daemons listening on them, Mac OS had zero ports open, out of the box. Large web sites like www.army.mil running on Mac OS were certainly the exception rather than the rule, but that's not the only reason Macs enjoyed better network security than much of their competition.
They wouldn't know your name, but they would know your IP address. That, and an accurate timestamp, is enough information for your ISP to find your account and get a name from your billing information. One step at a time...
More like CL didn't care. They didn't care enough to show up to court, so they didn't care enough to fight about it.
If they had shown up and fought in court, they might have won, and therefore not been forced to reveal the guy's identity. However, because they lost (by default), they are now being forced to do so by the court.
do i give up all of my work and program from scratch according to a new approach? or do i just ignore safari?
That depends. Starting from scratch with a new approach might result in code that's even more compatible with other browsers you haven't thought of, and it might even work better on the browsers you already do support.
Not only does the iPhone use WebKit, but my Nokia phone does as well. How many mobile users access your web site?
In case anyone missed this detail, Apple charges TWO DOLLARS to enable a feature that was not previously offered (these machines were not sold as "802.11n ready" or "802.11n support coming real soon now" or anything like that). Anyone who bought one, and opted not to pay the additional $1.99, got exactly what they paid for, a machine with IEEE802.11b/g support.
Apple believes that if they didn't do this, they could be in huge trouble with the SEC. Apple may be wrong about that, but they're not selling a $2 upgrade because they want your money.
If you can't administer it from Apple's Server Admin GUI, then it's not an option for most Mac admins. DJBDNS is probably great, but it's not a solution to this problem.
I'm not running Mac OS X Server myself, so it's not something I can fix.
ZoneAlarm breaks in the sense that it thinks Microsoft's new DNS resolver is behaving like malware and should therefore not be trusted. ZoneAlarm has a ridiculous little slider with three security levels marked "High", "Medium" and "Low"; if you set it to "High" (as recommended), you can't resolve DNS.
ZoneAlarm has released a patch to work around the problem. You can set your security setting to "Medium" while you download the update.
I don't believe the people saying DNSSEC is the answer are suggesting that if you deploy DNSSEC on your nameserver today you'll be safe. They're saying if everyone deploys DNSSEC on everybody's nameservers including the root zone, then we'll all be safe. DNSSEC is not a short-term solution, but if the spec is stable enough now and the various kinks have been worked out, then now is a good time to start testing it on root servers, gTLD servers, and ccTLD servers. Once that's done, then ISPs should start using it, and it will actually do some good.
I'm thinking of getting a group together to see it at Lloyd Center at 9:20pm tonight. That should be late enough not to conflict with Mark Shuttleworth's talk.
Note that there are two cinemas at Lloyd Center; this is the one inside the mall itself, not the one across the street. It's a free MAX ride from the convention center. Reply here if interested.
I didn't mean to imply that absentee/provisional ballots are never counted anywhere. Each state has their own election rules. However, my understanding was that there are some states that do not count absentee/provisional ballots unless the results are close enough (there's a threshold written into the law).
I could be mistaken. I'm only really familiar with the process in my own state, which is rather different.
The solution I'd like to see is electronic voting machines that print human-readable Scantron-type ballots but do not count them, with plain paper ballots available to be filled out by hand if needed (or for anyone who prefers them). These printed (or filled-out-by-hand) ballots would then be fed face-down into a counting machine, which would reject an invalid ballot the same way a vending machine rejects an unreadable dollar bill.
It's not a cheap solution, but aside from that, it's the best of both worlds: you get a friendly easy-to-use UI that can provide as much information as a voter wants, in a variety of languages including audio for the blind, with safeguards to prevent you from making invalid selections (e.g. voting for multiple candidates) and a warning if you skip something. You get a chance to review your choices before printing, and can see your vote as recorded on the printed ballot before casting it (by actually holding it in your hand, not just by peering through a little window after your vote has already been cast). If something went wrong, just shred the ballot and start over. Then you get a fast and accurate count, with input validation to make sure an invalid or unreadable ballot can't be cast. Manual recounts are no problem, because you have the printed ballots locked away inside the counting machine; a handful of random recounts should be mandatory, in addition to recounts in case of any problems. Finally, you have backups for both computerized systems: ballots that can be filled out by hand, and a plain locked box in case the counting machine isn't working (perhaps just using the counting machine with the computerized part disabled).
No, that's pretty common. If 55% of voters at the polls vote "yes" on something and 35% vote "no", then there's no reason to count the other 10% that voted absentee, because it doesn't matter whether the final outcome is 55-45 or 65-35.
On the other hand, if 45% voted "yes" and 40% voted "no", the 15% of people who voted absentee do make a difference, so they'll be counted.
Are you saying if he gives up the password the potholes will be fixed, the traffic will flow, the mail will be on time and the water from the tap won't stink anymore?
More importantly, are there passwords that could be provided to other municipalities that would cause these things to happen there as well?
I neglected to mention that the group doesn't all vote in unison. People agree to disagree here. In many circles it's just considered impolite to ask someone how they voted, even though asking their opinion on an issue or candidate (and voicing your own) is encouraged. Sometimes a consensus opinion may be reached; usually it isn't.
Usually my conservative friends are shocked to hear how far radically left wing my political views are, while my left-leaning friends are similarly shocked to hear how backwardly conservative my political views are. I find this amusing.
And as a consumer, I hope Intel starts taking GPUs seriously. Their on-board video chipsets have great open-source drivers, but they don't have the power to compete against nVidia or ATi for gaming, and I can't go out and buy an Intel video card.
Here in Oregon, enough people were opting to vote by mail that they just decided to get rid of polling places altogether. We do still have ballot boxes at various community locations (libraries, schools, etc.) so you can drop off your ballot instead of paying for postage.
Oregon's vote by mail system does not protect against vote buying. However, Oregon citizens are willing to risk that potential danger in exchange for the ability to have voting parties, where a group of friends can get together, discuss each issue on the ballot, answer each other's questions, and make an informed decision while eating cookies and generally enjoying each other's company.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I checked at a client's office this morning; they have a G4 tower running Mac OS X Server acting as their file server and NAT router, but it's pointing DNS to external servers that have been patched. So no, not quite that many. ;-)
apple was never secure. It was just unused.
Au contraire - classic Mac OS was vastly more secure than most Linux distributions at the time, at least from external attacks. Classic Mac OS was never secure from local users with physical access to the box, and of course there have been security holes here and there. However, when RedHat was shipping with dozens of ports open and who knows what daemons listening on them, Mac OS had zero ports open, out of the box. Large web sites like www.army.mil running on Mac OS were certainly the exception rather than the rule, but that's not the only reason Macs enjoyed better network security than much of their competition.
They wouldn't know your name, but they would know your IP address. That, and an accurate timestamp, is enough information for your ISP to find your account and get a name from your billing information. One step at a time...
More like CL didn't care. They didn't care enough to show up to court, so they didn't care enough to fight about it.
If they had shown up and fought in court, they might have won, and therefore not been forced to reveal the guy's identity. However, because they lost (by default), they are now being forced to do so by the court.
do i give up all of my work and program from scratch according to a new approach? or do i just ignore safari?
That depends. Starting from scratch with a new approach might result in code that's even more compatible with other browsers you haven't thought of, and it might even work better on the browsers you already do support.
Not only does the iPhone use WebKit, but my Nokia phone does as well. How many mobile users access your web site?
Mmmmmm.
In case anyone missed this detail, Apple charges TWO DOLLARS to enable a feature that was not previously offered (these machines were not sold as "802.11n ready" or "802.11n support coming real soon now" or anything like that). Anyone who bought one, and opted not to pay the additional $1.99, got exactly what they paid for, a machine with IEEE802.11b/g support.
Apple believes that if they didn't do this, they could be in huge trouble with the SEC. Apple may be wrong about that, but they're not selling a $2 upgrade because they want your money.
If you can't administer it from Apple's Server Admin GUI, then it's not an option for most Mac admins. DJBDNS is probably great, but it's not a solution to this problem.
I'm not running Mac OS X Server myself, so it's not something I can fix.
If you can't administer it from Apple's Server Admin GUI, then it's not an option for most Mac admins.
ZoneAlarm breaks in the sense that it thinks Microsoft's new DNS resolver is behaving like malware and should therefore not be trusted. ZoneAlarm has a ridiculous little slider with three security levels marked "High", "Medium" and "Low"; if you set it to "High" (as recommended), you can't resolve DNS.
ZoneAlarm has released a patch to work around the problem. You can set your security setting to "Medium" while you download the update.
I don't believe the people saying DNSSEC is the answer are suggesting that if you deploy DNSSEC on your nameserver today you'll be safe. They're saying if everyone deploys DNSSEC on everybody's nameservers including the root zone, then we'll all be safe. DNSSEC is not a short-term solution, but if the spec is stable enough now and the various kinks have been worked out, then now is a good time to start testing it on root servers, gTLD servers, and ccTLD servers. Once that's done, then ISPs should start using it, and it will actually do some good.
Any Server Admin who didnt realize that isnt really a server admin. And the rest of the world probably doesnt care or need to know.
Just a thought... ;-)
The fact that they're not really server admins doesn't stop them from running servers, though!
Any idea when Apple might release a patch for Mac OS X Server?
I know compiling BIND from source is always an option, but most admins aren't going to do that.
Actually, rather than replying here, list yourself on the wiki.
Tonight at 9:20
I've just made a wiki page for the 9:20 showing tonight.
I'm thinking of getting a group together to see it at Lloyd Center at 9:20pm tonight. That should be late enough not to conflict with Mark Shuttleworth's talk.
Note that there are two cinemas at Lloyd Center; this is the one inside the mall itself, not the one across the street. It's a free MAX ride from the convention center. Reply here if interested.
Definitely file a complaint with the local PUC.
Democracy without cookies is no democracy at all.
I didn't mean to imply that absentee/provisional ballots are never counted anywhere. Each state has their own election rules. However, my understanding was that there are some states that do not count absentee/provisional ballots unless the results are close enough (there's a threshold written into the law).
I could be mistaken. I'm only really familiar with the process in my own state, which is rather different.
The solution I'd like to see is electronic voting machines that print human-readable Scantron-type ballots but do not count them, with plain paper ballots available to be filled out by hand if needed (or for anyone who prefers them). These printed (or filled-out-by-hand) ballots would then be fed face-down into a counting machine, which would reject an invalid ballot the same way a vending machine rejects an unreadable dollar bill.
It's not a cheap solution, but aside from that, it's the best of both worlds: you get a friendly easy-to-use UI that can provide as much information as a voter wants, in a variety of languages including audio for the blind, with safeguards to prevent you from making invalid selections (e.g. voting for multiple candidates) and a warning if you skip something. You get a chance to review your choices before printing, and can see your vote as recorded on the printed ballot before casting it (by actually holding it in your hand, not just by peering through a little window after your vote has already been cast). If something went wrong, just shred the ballot and start over. Then you get a fast and accurate count, with input validation to make sure an invalid or unreadable ballot can't be cast. Manual recounts are no problem, because you have the printed ballots locked away inside the counting machine; a handful of random recounts should be mandatory, in addition to recounts in case of any problems. Finally, you have backups for both computerized systems: ballots that can be filled out by hand, and a plain locked box in case the counting machine isn't working (perhaps just using the counting machine with the computerized part disabled).
No, that's pretty common. If 55% of voters at the polls vote "yes" on something and 35% vote "no", then there's no reason to count the other 10% that voted absentee, because it doesn't matter whether the final outcome is 55-45 or 65-35.
On the other hand, if 45% voted "yes" and 40% voted "no", the 15% of people who voted absentee do make a difference, so they'll be counted.
Are you saying if he gives up the password the potholes will be fixed, the traffic will flow, the mail will be on time and the water from the tap won't stink anymore?
More importantly, are there passwords that could be provided to other municipalities that would cause these things to happen there as well?
I neglected to mention that the group doesn't all vote in unison. People agree to disagree here. In many circles it's just considered impolite to ask someone how they voted, even though asking their opinion on an issue or candidate (and voicing your own) is encouraged. Sometimes a consensus opinion may be reached; usually it isn't.
Usually my conservative friends are shocked to hear how far radically left wing my political views are, while my left-leaning friends are similarly shocked to hear how backwardly conservative my political views are. I find this amusing.
And as a consumer, I hope Intel starts taking GPUs seriously. Their on-board video chipsets have great open-source drivers, but they don't have the power to compete against nVidia or ATi for gaming, and I can't go out and buy an Intel video card.
Here in Oregon, enough people were opting to vote by mail that they just decided to get rid of polling places altogether. We do still have ballot boxes at various community locations (libraries, schools, etc.) so you can drop off your ballot instead of paying for postage.
Oregon's vote by mail system does not protect against vote buying. However, Oregon citizens are willing to risk that potential danger in exchange for the ability to have voting parties, where a group of friends can get together, discuss each issue on the ballot, answer each other's questions, and make an informed decision while eating cookies and generally enjoying each other's company.