To say Star Trek has second class status to Star Wars is like saying the Beatles have second class status to Jennifer Lopez. (Sure it does, to ignorant, vapid kiddies.)
The other dorks get their category because they're newer, they get more current news, and the Slashdot owners are lame for giving them their own sections. Besides, its demoralizing to have a unique section saying Star Trek:X sucks in comparison to TOS.
I need a Star Trek section on/. like I need a Bible section to/. . Just leave the sleeping dogs lie.
The new Mozilla is released at a fortuitous moment
on
Mozilla 1.7 Released
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Perhaps it'll distract enough people so I can finish rsyncing to the slackware server...
(So far, no such luck... *sigh*)
What is it with Slashdot? They can' stop dupe stories, they can't spell in the age of spell checkers, why did they suddenly decide to start reporting software releases in a (way too) timely manner?
Because webbrowsing isn't the only thing one does on a 'puter. You need to read email too. Using Mozilla saves on the bloat of using the mail client too.
And even though I don't process email on my Windows laptop, I still put the full Mozilla in and set the defaults to go through mozilla mail rather than *ahem*...
The bad news: given Microsoft's marketing techniques, they will ruthlessly run their AV competitors out of business.
The good news: Microsoft AV product will lapse into cost-effective mediocrity once they run their competitors out of business. This will increase the presence of viruses in MS OS products, which will increase their reputation for being unreliable and insecure. The end result will be the eventual adoption of Linux in the computer industry. Yay!
Well, I hope you're happy! Those poor Europeans will have to wait another day (or TWO) before they can get the complete version of Slackware 10 rc1. Now we got all those testers testing something pre-rc1.
This place is sheer genius. Most news is 3 days to 3 months old. But when it comes to "news" of a pre-release, they'll report it in 12 hours, before all the other mirrors can update themselves. *sheesh*
No, it becomes a serious problem when someone figures out a way to trigger the attack without the direct need for a command shell. (worm/trojan, for example.)
Presume there is a bug can be triggered a lockup/crash remotely. The gist of my post still applies, no?
Right now, any semi-current linux setup is a sitting duck for this kind of DOS attack. It will stay this way, until some programmer sends the maintainers a patch, and the maintainers release it as a new version (and the distributions make it available to their users). I'm guessing there is a minimum three days for all of this to come about, and I'm sure not seeing a fix on kernel.org right now. Sure you need a shell to run the DOS exploit, BUT do you really think crackers aren't working on a remote version right now?
With commercial vendors, convention among the white hat hackers is to inform the vendors, and agree to a non-disclosure period (3 months?) before making the security hole public. That is certainly a preferable method than leaving thousands of linux machines vulnerable right now.
Perhaps Linus could assign a volunteer for the development and stable kernels to act as "security" maintainer. Ethical hackers could report the details to them, the security officer can contact the developers that have their code affected. Between them and whatever volunteers they can discreetly ask for help could code a fix, test it, and then have it merged/released into the official trees as a security fix. This would minimize the sitting duck situation. Even if Linus decides not to implement this, it should be done at every commercial distributor. They tend to release their own tweaked kernels anyway, and it would be a service to their customers. Plus, they can inform their customers to update, and let the information wreak havoc with their competitors (until they implement and distribute a fix).
What happens to the mispunched card? What's to prevent a mispunched card from being counted as a legitimate vote, or a legitimate vote counted as a mispunched card?
Mispunched card gets chucked. If the card counting machine can't decipher the mispunched card, it gets rejected. Some dope loses their vote. So what? It was their job to determine their vote submission was valid by putting it in the reader first. The voter is only able to submit one card (or set of cards) to the vote collector. Counting the number of cards and the people who checked helps prevent potential voter fraud.
Also, most places vote on more than just candidates in general elections. Many states have ballot measure or referendum initiatives, so the list of possible options can get fairly long. How do you ensure that non-technically-savvy people can enter all of their number combinations correctly?
Ballot measures (whatever) get their own number (a value for yes, a value for no). If a voter can't look at a wall, see the candidates listed under, say "president", punch in the number beside the candidate, finish punching in the rest of their choices, take the card, pop it into a reader, view their choices, and not figure out whether they picked their selections, they don't deserve to vote.
Voter goes into keypunch booth, looks at wall with each candidate assigned a number, voter types in numbers, extracts card, and (new part), sticks card into reader which displays their choices on a screen. (Doesn't like what she sees, goes back in line to punch out another card.) Voter hands in card.
You have anonymity, a paper trail, no concerns about hanging chads or mispunches, minimal maintenance, and almost no high tech specialist requirements. I wouldn't be shocked if most of this type of equipment is still manufactured and maintained.
They are probably not packaging it properly. Perhaps what they should be doing is teaching "Introduction to Computer Architecture (201)" and using assembler as the language for class instruction. True, you could go about teaching those concepts using a higher level language. But that would be a form of cheating, faking the experience, at least until CPUs are designed to execute java in its instruction sets (that's a joke, son...). Besides, some professors tend to be sadistic, and prefer not to instruct a class in a commonly used language (where coding can be cribbed). It also may give a student a better appreciation for the computer oriented math classes, dealing with boolean logic, linear algebra, etc.
The other problem is that the most prevalent computer for assembler assignments would be the one of the worst CPUs to learn assember (the x86 family). Then again, perhaps something like A86 still works for Athlon/P4, and the "arcane" CPU features can be totally avoided. Or perhaps there is an adequate 8bit CPU emulator for class instruction.
The only thing I find impressive about a PhD degree, (when bestowed by an accredited, competitive program) is that you are required to produce "unique" research in order to be awarded the degree. Its one thing to put out a technical paper rehashing some obscure crap. To research and produce something that hasn't been presented before I believe is quite a feat.
But then again, perhaps its my naivete; not being familiar enough with PhD thesis material to discern the hack work.
As for having the funds... That is why we have the ACLU, to protect those who have their liberty deprived who can't afford to defend against the Govt.
And when you're innocent and the ACLU has limited funds? You get the PD, perhaps the bottom of the legal barrel. The ACLU focuses primarily on cases they think they can use to affirm a constitutional principle, expose some significant form of prosecutorial malfeasance, or set legal precedent. When the FBI goes full bore with Liberty II enforcement, the ACLU won't have the resources to defend everyone. They are not a replacement or supplement to the Public Defender's department. They aren't even *all* great lawyers.
Guess what kind of justice you get when you can't afford a good lawyer, or "luck" into a case that goes to the Supreme Court? You get American Justice: You plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit, or spend an extra 10-20 years being someone's butt puppet. Yay American Legal System.
Cable Voip has the same levels of reliability that POTS has. Thats the requirement for offering it along with 911 calling.
Only in sections of the country that Cable VOIP is giving 911 support, AND only in the states that sets standards & regulates telephony. Any assurance beyond that is false advertising.
You must have a POTS (plain old telephone service) line. They are usually regulated by the state, and are mandated to provide service with minimal downtime. This usually means built-in redundancy in the entire system (including power). When the WTC towers went down, I was still able to call out on a POTS line. When the Northeast Blackout occurred the following year, I was able to call out on a POTS line.
As critical as internet service is, I doubt it has "5 nines" in reliability. When it goes out for two-three days, those are days you can't remote access the internet, or use VOIP to talk to people. You could try having POTS, DSL, Vonnage, and a cell phone with some form of data service, but then we're not talking cheap.
What are you f**king babbling about? What engagements did we lose that forced us to permanently withdraw from a region in Vietnam? The US was extending control in every part of South Vietnam after Tet until the US withdrew from Vietnam.
The intelligent thing I *think* you're trying to say is that winning every engagement still resulted in utter failure. That was because the strategic campaign was utterly flawed. Getting ten more victories on the battlefield was not going to make a difference in the strategic goal of ensuring the survival of the S. Vietnamese Gov't, its hegemony over its territory, and cessation of hostilities with N. Vietnam.
I would include the neocons biggest flunky- Ahmed Chalabi.
Chalabi wasn't merely a neocon flunky. He was a con man that was wanted in Jordan for bank fraud. It appears that the Bush administration relied on Chalabi's intel in formulating their Iraq policy. What does that say about the Bush administration?
The Bush administration has said that they do not abide by the Geneva Conventions, and the administration's political history has been to circumvent any attempt by the World Court to subject the US military or politicians to trial for war crimes.
The citizens of the United States were better off with that piece of shit Saddam running Iraq. They never should have changed the status quo of the situation in 2002 by invading Iraq.
Not because "war is wrong", but because once the US unilaterally invaded Iraq, it would have no way to get out, without a worse situation occurring (a theocracy against the US). Because we can't get out (without having a more f**ked up situation), 800 US citizens have lost their lives (and more heroes are about to die for their country), reservists are confronted with the situation of being a grunt for the next ten years, while their families fall apart and loss of potential civilian career, and the cost to the US taxpayer will probably ultimately go into the trillions of dollars for this escapade.
This result of this action was forseen by military & strategic experts before the actual invasion. It only could have been mitigated by better planning and execution by the U.S. Gov't. Obviously, they failed miserably (Invasion suceeded, occupation has failed). Now these same experts are indicating that our U.S. military will become unable to meet its world wide security committments (Korea & Taiwan) because the bulk of our force is now stuck in Iraq & Afganistan. Support the US and the troops all you want. But if you support Bush, then you support an administration that *failed* in reverting Iraq into a stable nation, and made the US geopolitical situation much worse than it was in 2002.
The "imminent threat" to the US by Saddam has been demonstrated to be a lie. A lie concocted by the U.S. Gov't, with the most likely culprits the Bush administration.
You think the lie was merely a mistake caused by British intelligence. But we had US personnel verify that the intel was wrong. When one of those gov't employees tried to point out that the administration was lying about not receiving the information, someone decided to tell the press that his wife worked as a deep cover anti-terrorist agent. There was no reason to reveal her name. Its a federal crime to do so. It damaged the intelligence network she setup against WMD terrorists, jeapardized her life, and now she can't work in CIA because she's been outed.
Why Bush decided to invade Iraq, who was behind it (Israel???), is all distracting speculation.
The only thing left to do is kick out the Bush administration for their egregious failure, and hope the next set of ass-clowns can do a better job. The current group has failed.
As I said, with the right spamblocking service & setup, you don't get false positives. There are spam blocking services, that catalog spam, and then prevent that spam block from reaching the customer. Unless you are waiting for email from a friend that wants to tell you where you can get Viagra cheap, and then sends that same message to 5000 other email accounts. (*DUH*)
No one (sane) *manually* checks for false positives, just the end user. You do need manual personnel to follow up on end user inquiries, but it should be moot. If you have the right spamblocking service/setup, you're not going to get false positives...
The weakness is that you can run a show based on characters that develop in time. You have to hope that every script kills, like Twilight Zone. I'd like to see that kind of ST too, but only if they could get the cream of the sci-fi writing crop.
Could you imagine Joss Whedon or J. Michael Straczynski kicking in a script? Wouldn't it be funny if they could get Kiefer Sutherland and Carlos Bernard on the same crew? William J Peterson would be fun to see as a captain...
Slashdot Mirror
To say Star Trek has second class status to Star Wars is like saying the Beatles have second class status to Jennifer Lopez. (Sure it does, to ignorant, vapid kiddies.)
/. like I need a Bible section to /. . Just leave the sleeping dogs lie.
The other dorks get their category because they're newer, they get more current news, and the Slashdot owners are lame for giving them their own sections. Besides, its demoralizing to have a unique section saying Star Trek:X sucks in comparison to TOS.
I need a Star Trek section on
Perhaps it'll distract enough people so I can finish rsyncing to the slackware server...
(So far, no such luck... *sigh*)
What is it with Slashdot? They can' stop dupe stories, they can't spell in the age of spell checkers, why did they suddenly decide to start reporting software releases in a (way too) timely manner?
Because webbrowsing isn't the only thing one does on a 'puter. You need to read email too. Using Mozilla saves on the bloat of using the mail client too.
And even though I don't process email on my Windows laptop, I still put the full Mozilla in and set the defaults to go through mozilla mail rather than *ahem*...
The bad news: given Microsoft's marketing techniques, they will ruthlessly run their AV competitors out of business.
The good news: Microsoft AV product will lapse into cost-effective mediocrity once they run their competitors out of business. This will increase the presence of viruses in MS OS products, which will increase their reputation for being unreliable and insecure. The end result will be the eventual adoption of Linux in the computer industry. Yay!
Well, I hope you're happy! Those poor Europeans will have to wait another day (or TWO) before they can get the complete version of Slackware 10 rc1. Now we got all those testers testing something pre-rc1.
This place is sheer genius. Most news is 3 days to 3 months old. But when it comes to "news" of a pre-release, they'll report it in 12 hours, before all the other mirrors can update themselves. *sheesh*
This is not the release of Slackware 10! This is merely the release of the "release candidate version 1"!
Worst of all, I was looking forward to rsync the update today, and now you've shot that idea to hell, Timothy!
No, it becomes a serious problem when someone figures out a way to trigger the attack without the direct need for a command shell. (worm/trojan, for example.)
Presume there is a bug can be triggered a lockup/crash remotely. The gist of my post still applies, no?
Yeah, technically, its not a DOS attack. But when the machine locks up/crashes, it pretty much the same result, no?
Right now, any semi-current linux setup is a sitting duck for this kind of DOS attack. It will stay this way, until some programmer sends the maintainers a patch, and the maintainers release it as a new version (and the distributions make it available to their users). I'm guessing there is a minimum three days for all of this to come about, and I'm sure not seeing a fix on kernel.org right now. Sure you need a shell to run the DOS exploit, BUT do you really think crackers aren't working on a remote version right now?
With commercial vendors, convention among the white hat hackers is to inform the vendors, and agree to a non-disclosure period (3 months?) before making the security hole public. That is certainly a preferable method than leaving thousands of linux machines vulnerable right now.
Perhaps Linus could assign a volunteer for the development and stable kernels to act as "security" maintainer. Ethical hackers could report the details to them, the security officer can contact the developers that have their code affected. Between them and whatever volunteers they can discreetly ask for help could code a fix, test it, and then have it merged/released into the official trees as a security fix. This would minimize the sitting duck situation. Even if Linus decides not to implement this, it should be done at every commercial distributor. They tend to release their own tweaked kernels anyway, and it would be a service to their customers. Plus, they can inform their customers to update, and let the information wreak havoc with their competitors (until they implement and distribute a fix).
What happens to the mispunched card? What's to prevent a mispunched card from being counted as a legitimate vote, or a legitimate vote counted as a mispunched card?
Mispunched card gets chucked. If the card counting machine can't decipher the mispunched card, it gets rejected. Some dope loses their vote. So what? It was their job to determine their vote submission was valid by putting it in the reader first. The voter is only able to submit one card (or set of cards) to the vote collector. Counting the number of cards and the people who checked helps prevent potential voter fraud.
Also, most places vote on more than just candidates in general elections. Many states have ballot measure or referendum initiatives, so the list of possible options can get fairly long. How do you ensure that non-technically-savvy people can enter all of their number combinations correctly?
Ballot measures (whatever) get their own number (a value for yes, a value for no). If a voter can't look at a wall, see the candidates listed under, say "president", punch in the number beside the candidate, finish punching in the rest of their choices, take the card, pop it into a reader, view their choices, and not figure out whether they picked their selections, they don't deserve to vote.
Use keypunch encoders.
Voter goes into keypunch booth, looks at wall with each candidate assigned a number, voter types in numbers, extracts card, and (new part), sticks card into reader which displays their choices on a screen. (Doesn't like what she sees, goes back in line to punch out another card.) Voter hands in card.
You have anonymity, a paper trail, no concerns about hanging chads or mispunches, minimal maintenance, and almost no high tech specialist requirements. I wouldn't be shocked if most of this type of equipment is still manufactured and maintained.
They are probably not packaging it properly. Perhaps what they should be doing is teaching "Introduction to Computer Architecture (201)" and using assembler as the language for class instruction. True, you could go about teaching those concepts using a higher level language. But that would be a form of cheating, faking the experience, at least until CPUs are designed to execute java in its instruction sets (that's a joke, son...). Besides, some professors tend to be sadistic, and prefer not to instruct a class in a commonly used language (where coding can be cribbed). It also may give a student a better appreciation for the computer oriented math classes, dealing with boolean logic, linear algebra, etc.
The other problem is that the most prevalent computer for assembler assignments would be the one of the worst CPUs to learn assember (the x86 family). Then again, perhaps something like A86 still works for Athlon/P4, and the "arcane" CPU features can be totally avoided. Or perhaps there is an adequate 8bit CPU emulator for class instruction.
Cut that lying crap, you propagandistic tool.
Everyone knows that GW spends his time clearing brush and riding mountain bikes. Its his dad that's into time wasters like playing golf!
The only thing I find impressive about a PhD degree, (when bestowed by an accredited, competitive program) is that you are required to produce "unique" research in order to be awarded the degree. Its one thing to put out a technical paper rehashing some obscure crap. To research and produce something that hasn't been presented before I believe is quite a feat.
But then again, perhaps its my naivete; not being familiar enough with PhD thesis material to discern the hack work.
As for having the funds... That is why we have the ACLU, to protect those who have their liberty deprived who can't afford to defend against the Govt.
And when you're innocent and the ACLU has limited funds? You get the PD, perhaps the bottom of the legal barrel. The ACLU focuses primarily on cases they think they can use to affirm a constitutional principle, expose some significant form of prosecutorial malfeasance, or set legal precedent. When the FBI goes full bore with Liberty II enforcement, the ACLU won't have the resources to defend everyone. They are not a replacement or supplement to the Public Defender's department. They aren't even *all* great lawyers.
Guess what kind of justice you get when you can't afford a good lawyer, or "luck" into a case that goes to the Supreme Court? You get American Justice: You plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit, or spend an extra 10-20 years being someone's butt puppet. Yay American Legal System.
Cable Voip has the same levels of reliability that POTS has. Thats the requirement for offering it along with 911 calling.
Only in sections of the country that Cable VOIP is giving 911 support, AND only in the states that sets standards & regulates telephony. Any assurance beyond that is false advertising.
You must have a POTS (plain old telephone service) line. They are usually regulated by the state, and are mandated to provide service with minimal downtime. This usually means built-in redundancy in the entire system (including power). When the WTC towers went down, I was still able to call out on a POTS line. When the Northeast Blackout occurred the following year, I was able to call out on a POTS line.
As critical as internet service is, I doubt it has "5 nines" in reliability. When it goes out for two-three days, those are days you can't remote access the internet, or use VOIP to talk to people. You could try having POTS, DSL, Vonnage, and a cell phone with some form of data service, but then we're not talking cheap.
We lost nearly every engagement.
What are you f**king babbling about? What engagements did we lose that forced us to permanently withdraw from a region in Vietnam? The US was extending control in every part of South Vietnam after Tet until the US withdrew from Vietnam.
The intelligent thing I *think* you're trying to say is that winning every engagement still resulted in utter failure. That was because the strategic campaign was utterly flawed. Getting ten more victories on the battlefield was not going to make a difference in the strategic goal of ensuring the survival of the S. Vietnamese Gov't, its hegemony over its territory, and cessation of hostilities with N. Vietnam.
I would include the neocons biggest flunky- Ahmed Chalabi.
Chalabi wasn't merely a neocon flunky. He was a con man that was wanted in Jordan for bank fraud. It appears that the Bush administration relied on Chalabi's intel in formulating their Iraq policy. What does that say about the Bush administration?
The Bush administration has said that they do not abide by the Geneva Conventions, and the administration's political history has been to circumvent any attempt by the World Court to subject the US military or politicians to trial for war crimes.
The citizens of the United States were better off with that piece of shit Saddam running Iraq. They never should have changed the status quo of the situation in 2002 by invading Iraq.
Not because "war is wrong", but because once the US unilaterally invaded Iraq, it would have no way to get out, without a worse situation occurring (a theocracy against the US). Because we can't get out (without having a more f**ked up situation), 800 US citizens have lost their lives (and more heroes are about to die for their country), reservists are confronted with the situation of being a grunt for the next ten years, while their families fall apart and loss of potential civilian career, and the cost to the US taxpayer will probably ultimately go into the trillions of dollars for this escapade.
This result of this action was forseen by military & strategic experts before the actual invasion. It only could have been mitigated by better planning and execution by the U.S. Gov't. Obviously, they failed miserably (Invasion suceeded, occupation has failed). Now these same experts are indicating that our U.S. military will become unable to meet its world wide security committments (Korea & Taiwan) because the bulk of our force is now stuck in Iraq & Afganistan. Support the US and the troops all you want. But if you support Bush, then you support an administration that *failed* in reverting Iraq into a stable nation, and made the US geopolitical situation much worse than it was in 2002.
The "imminent threat" to the US by Saddam has been demonstrated to be a lie. A lie concocted by the U.S. Gov't, with the most likely culprits the Bush administration.
You think the lie was merely a mistake caused by British intelligence. But we had US personnel verify that the intel was wrong. When one of those gov't employees tried to point out that the administration was lying about not receiving the information, someone decided to tell the press that his wife worked as a deep cover anti-terrorist agent. There was no reason to reveal her name. Its a federal crime to do so. It damaged the intelligence network she setup against WMD terrorists, jeapardized her life, and now she can't work in CIA because she's been outed.
Why Bush decided to invade Iraq, who was behind it (Israel???), is all distracting speculation.
The only thing left to do is kick out the Bush administration for their egregious failure, and hope the next set of ass-clowns can do a better job. The current group has failed.
As I said, with the right spamblocking service & setup, you don't get false positives. There are spam blocking services, that catalog spam, and then prevent that spam block from reaching the customer. Unless you are waiting for email from a friend that wants to tell you where you can get Viagra cheap, and then sends that same message to 5000 other email accounts. (*DUH*)
Legit email will be lost, because they originate from crappy email services.
Also, you're forgetting there still is a CPU/network cost in running the reverse DNS/MX check. It may not be feasible, given their resources.
No one (sane) *manually* checks for false positives, just the end user. You do need manual personnel to follow up on end user inquiries, but it should be moot. If you have the right spamblocking service/setup, you're not going to get false positives...
That would be tough to do. He's dead, Jim...
The weakness is that you can run a show based on characters that develop in time. You have to hope that every script kills, like Twilight Zone. I'd like to see that kind of ST too, but only if they could get the cream of the sci-fi writing crop.
Could you imagine Joss Whedon or J. Michael Straczynski kicking in a script? Wouldn't it be funny if they could get Kiefer Sutherland and Carlos Bernard on the same crew? William J Peterson would be fun to see as a captain...