I signed up for hotmail purely to get to speak to my friends on msn, I clicked the box saying something like "if you don't wish you email to be passed on click here" and de-selected all the newsletters.
In 4 months I have had 4 emails, all from support@hotmail.com telling me of new services. No spam at all. Perhaps people just need to pay more attention to the sign-up process.
Digital TV decoders went on sale in the UK for around £80, roughly $120, and that is a seperate box with obvious additional costs over putting them straight in the TV such as the cases, packaging, distribution, retailing, marketing(although they kept it pretty quiet) and probably loads more I can't think of right now so I don't really see it adding $200 onto the price of each TV sold there. Not without making someones pocket very fat.
"The courts of England." Please. You make it sound like a concerted nationwide legal consensus. Some random piddling backwater judge decided he'd rather take the long weekend and dismissed the case as not being appropriate for the specific jurisdiction it was brought under.
Since the English legal system uses the Doctrine of Precedent (where a judges decision in a past case must be followed by other (lower) courts) and this case must have been seen in one of the highest courts in the land (probably Crown) then this is effectively a nationwide legal consensus.
Thats how our legal system works, and it seems extremely unlikely that a judge would make a decision in a case involving territorial disputes and attacking our armed forces on a whim to have a "long weekend" or even that it was some "random piddling backwater judge" that saw the case.
The fact it has now happened twice makes the decision even more solid. I think now it would take either the House of Lords or the EU Court of Human Rights to overrule it.
Yes it will. They will know the amount they can take before running into trouble, exactly the same as we can with any pharmacutical we take now. When was the last time you heard of anyone OD'ing on ibuprofen by accident.
Not to mention if the supply was legalized you would always be able to be sure of the strength and amount of drugs you are buying/taking which blatently is going to stop people OD'ing.
One of the main reasons smackheads end up going over is because their supply is so tainted with various substances that each time they take it a different amount of the stuff is needed to get them high. If they could be certain of the amounts being taken the likelyhood of them overdosing would be reduced massively.
"However, the owners of the box are still responsible for the lack of security that allowed their box to be compromised."
I've now heard this too many times. It's simply wrong. Whatever their reasons for putting a system online that is not totally secure are irrelevant. Blame the person who broke in, not the person who owns/runs the computer.
As an example how many servers were (and still are) running vulnerable versions of apache? Should all those admins be held responsible if someone broke in to their system and abused it? How about if those same systems were broken into before that vulerability was disclosed. Where do you draw the line? I suggest drawing it by putting the responsibility firmly on the shoulders of the perpetrator of the crime rather than the victims.
nope, using 4.2.0 compiled from source on slack7.1 here and I can't get it to die. Possibly something to do with new kernel? I seem to remember seeing warnings about malloc.h being changed to slab.h...could be related..or I may just be grasping at straws:)
The alt sysreq function might work when X dies and locks the keyboard. I always forget which key does what so haven't been able to test it yet, Luckily X doesn't crash for me anyway (using 4.2.0).
it doesnt work for me either so make that two. I can't offer any reason why it doesnt work as according to the reg xfs makes no difference and the other differences between linux distro's shouldn't affect (i.e. filesystem layout)
Maybe its something to do with the version of mozilla. Mines an oldish nightly (2002042510) as none of the newer versions I've tried are anything like as stable/fast here. When loading a page with these huge fonts my mozilla just shows blank space where the fonts would be then stops processing it. The rest of the page loads fine and I cannot replicate any of the faults reported on lemuria.org
I wouldn't however state categorically from this that all slackware users are safe:) If you have a big enough sample you can draw any conclusion you want.
You should make your own copy of their data then delete it. The day before a deadline is best. You tell them how its impossible to get the data back unless using the...*insert random geektalk*...method which is highly illegal, very difficult and only you can perform at a cost. After seperating them from their paycheck restore the data for them.
That'll teach them to backup, and get you beer tokens:)
thanks for the explanation. That wasn't intended as a troll (seemed like a perfectly reasonable question to me). I just haven't brought any new CPUs for about 2 years now so haven't been following the market at all.
If you rely on NT's C2 security rating in your security decisions, you must keep in mind two important considerations. First, a C2 security rating is different from a C2 security certification. OSs and programs earn ratings, but individual installations must be certified. This distinction means that most NT installations are not C2 certified.
NT earned its C2 rating as a standalone system, with no networking enabled. If you take your C2Config C2-certified system and attach it to your LAN, your system loses its C2 certification.
I've seen high people jump off of cliffs into a lake without checking the water first, drive down the road swirving between lanes, and play with knives and other harmful objects
To be honest I've seen straight people doing all this, so whats your point? If those people had been properly educated about the effects of the drugs then they would be less likely to get into these situations anyway. If I'm under the influence I probably am more likely to get hurt, thats my decision to make though. I used to go surfing loads and regularly broke bones doing that so should that have been illegal to protect me from myself?
There are enough reasons why cannabis is illegal, and they're all utter FUD except the health risks of cancer. The cancer side can be fixed by smoking through a vaporizer or eating the hash anyway. Pick your conspiracy theory really. My personal favourite is the Paper Pulp Industry one.
Actually the Queen paid for it. So I guess you could say indirectly we paid for it although she has many incomes other than that provided by the state so it's a moot point really.
we're told its a royalist revival!
I've not heard the BBC ever pushing that angle other than on some news shows asking the question "so is this a royalist revival?" but I have heard many open discussions on the BBC about whether we should even have a royal family anymore so it's not like they're only playing one side.
I always used to despise the Royal Family but after seeing then give a standing ovation to Ozzy Osbourne and Tommy Iommi doing Paranoid live on stage my opinion of them is changing:)
Well what about my freedom to walk down the street safely? Doesn't that count for anything?
I just can't see any logical arguments here except conspiracy stories. It's a millions miles difference the government putting cameras in public places where there is already no privacy to them putting cameras in our houses.
Why the hell do you all think because we let cameras in public we would then roll straight over and let them into our homes?
By these paranoid arguments we should get rid of all weapons/army/police/cars/planes/tv/radio/technolog y as it *could* all be concevably abused by some future evil government(tm). Or how about putting everyone in prison. Because thats just one tiny little step down the road from putting cameras in public places isn't it.
It's not a black and white issue of simply what prevents crime and what doesn't. It's a case of balancing the need for security with the needs for privacy (to avoid big brother syndrome). Putting everyone in the country in prison would prevent crime but that doesn't make it a good idea. Putting cameras in public isn't even really a compromise because as far as I'm concerned I only gain from it.
If any party here tried to put cameras in peoples houses they would be thrown out at the next election (or probably before). If any military government took over for whatever reason (e.g. a 1984 style ww3) and decided to put CCTV everywhere, they could do it anyway regardless of whether a public system was already in place.
I understand your arguments, I just can't see the British public or government ever buying into it. Maybe it's me being shortsighted but after hearing all the dodgy shit some politicians get up to I hardly think they're going to want cameras watching them all the time either.
You appear to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying "so what?" and letting it go by. I've made an informed decision that I'd rather we had the camera's than not have them and run a much higher risk of being shot/blown up/robbed/beaten up in public. I've read 1984 and the (imo much closer to the money) brave new world and they're both scary books. A little paranoia never did anyone any harm but there are perfectly valid reasons to have camera's on the streets other than some great orwellian conspiracy.
iirc neither in 1984 nor in brave new world were the oppressive regimes brought on as a "gradually eroding change", instead they were created fairly suddenly and violently by wars (I think, don't have either book to hand now) so it's not a great example.
We've had bombs placed in the centers of our cities, people being shot, mugged, raped and generally fucked over so whats wrong with putting up the cameras if they help prevent it, or at least track down the guilty person afterwards.
Why should I care if the police/govt/anyone watches me walk down the main street of town or sitting on a bus? I never understood the argument that they're invading our privacy by putting camera's in public places.
Saying a password is "hard" to brute-force is just a measure of statistical probability. Stranger things have happened than a person getting hit by lightning, or winning the lottery.
such as trojaned logins, being watched type it in, keystroke loggers, man-in-the-middle, trojaned ssh/telnet/etc...need I go on?
Cracking passwords via brute force is only one of a very long list of ways of getting the password, and pretty low down it unless you happen to have a very fat computer lying around.
Apart from the fact that we've had echelon setup to do this for years, although I think local police would need a damn good reason (i.e. suspected terrorism) to get this info.
It sounds like Verisign would only be able to do this after the courts had awarded a proper warrent. Currently the EU is trying to force companies to store digital network data regardless of whether that data is part of a criminal case or not. Go sign this if it sounds like a bad idea to you.
I'd stick a honeypot RIGHT NEXT to the secure server.
I'd recommend you at least put a switch between them. If a honeypot that is literally right next to any production server gets cracked you risk having man-in-the-middle attacks run aswell as sniffing things like the ftp/email passes for the local segment.
Common sense would be running a honeypot anywhere but right next to the secure server:)
It depends what you mean by useful. It's perfectly possible to build a good functional website with some actual content using static pages. They're a helluva lot more useful than the millions of php nuke sites that have popped up everywhere imo.
And contains no interesting info, I'd bet. Exactly the hackers' point.
Whether a site has any interesting content has precisely sodall to do with whether that content is dynamically generated or not. It sounds more like the hackers were complaining that they could n't./overflow it. For $100k did they really expect to be able to download something off packetstorm and walk straight off with the money?
Hey man, it's true I did take it once but I never swallowed. Please cease and decist:)
Re: the point is largely the local area.
on
Project Eden
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Having lived in the area of the Eden project for a long time I can tell you it wasn't totally done for enviromental reasons. I seem to remember it origonally being represented as more of a large experiment which would attract lots of tourists. It has however generated huge amounts of revenue for the area, £120mil being quoted for the first 12 months. It may not save much of the enviroment but it saves hundreds of businesses and jobs around here, and has paid for itself already. And it's not like we know everything there is to know about biology yet so more research isn't a bad thing.
I totally agree with your arguments, I've not been to visit despite it only being 20 minutes away, but it's impossible to ignore the good it has done. Also don't forget the average slashdot reader probably isn't particularly interested in horticulture but this doesn't represent the population as a whole. I've met many people here who go up there regularly.
What is sad, is that within the next century, cheap imitations like this may be all we have left of nature.
You don't know much about the South West of England eh:) Probably 95% of the land is countryside, we have 2 huge national parks that are protected. We're not in any great danger of running out of natural habitats here yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I signed up for hotmail purely to get to speak to my friends on msn, I clicked the box saying something like "if you don't wish you email to be passed on click here" and de-selected all the newsletters.
In 4 months I have had 4 emails, all from support@hotmail.com telling me of new services. No spam at all. Perhaps people just need to pay more attention to the sign-up process.
Digital TV decoders went on sale in the UK for around £80, roughly $120, and that is a seperate box with obvious additional costs over putting them straight in the TV such as the cases, packaging, distribution, retailing, marketing(although they kept it pretty quiet) and probably loads more I can't think of right now so I don't really see it adding $200 onto the price of each TV sold there. Not without making someones pocket very fat.
"The courts of England." Please. You make it sound like a concerted nationwide legal consensus. Some random piddling backwater judge decided he'd rather take the long weekend and dismissed the case as not being appropriate for the specific jurisdiction it was brought under.
Since the English legal system uses the Doctrine of Precedent (where a judges decision in a past case must be followed by other (lower) courts) and this case must have been seen in one of the highest courts in the land (probably Crown) then this is effectively a nationwide legal consensus.
Thats how our legal system works, and it seems extremely unlikely that a judge would make a decision in a case involving territorial disputes and attacking our armed forces on a whim to have a "long weekend" or even that it was some "random piddling backwater judge" that saw the case.
The fact it has now happened twice makes the decision even more solid. I think now it would take either the House of Lords or the EU Court of Human Rights to overrule it.
Yes it will. They will know the amount they can take before running into trouble, exactly the same as we can with any pharmacutical we take now. When was the last time you heard of anyone OD'ing on ibuprofen by accident.
Not to mention if the supply was legalized you would always be able to be sure of the strength and amount of drugs you are buying/taking which blatently is going to stop people OD'ing.
One of the main reasons smackheads end up going over is because their supply is so tainted with various substances that each time they take it a different amount of the stuff is needed to get them high. If they could be certain of the amounts being taken the likelyhood of them overdosing would be reduced massively.
About as hard as typing:
md5sum ircii-pana-1.0c19.tar.gz >> MD5SUMS
I've often thought this before, unless you're getting the md5sums from some "secure" 3rd party or seperate server how can you trust them.
"However, the owners of the box are still responsible for the lack of security that allowed their box to be compromised."
I've now heard this too many times. It's simply wrong. Whatever their reasons for putting a system online that is not totally secure are irrelevant. Blame the person who broke in, not the person who owns/runs the computer.
As an example how many servers were (and still are) running vulnerable versions of apache? Should all those admins be held responsible if someone broke in to their system and abused it? How about if those same systems were broken into before that vulerability was disclosed. Where do you draw the line? I suggest drawing it by putting the responsibility firmly on the shoulders of the perpetrator of the crime rather than the victims.
nope, using 4.2.0 compiled from source on slack7.1 here and I can't get it to die. Possibly something to do with new kernel? I seem to remember seeing warnings about malloc.h being changed to slab.h...could be related..or I may just be grasping at straws :)
The alt sysreq function might work when X dies and locks the keyboard. I always forget which key does what so haven't been able to test it yet, Luckily X doesn't crash for me anyway (using 4.2.0).
info about alt-sysreq here.
it doesnt work for me either so make that two. I can't offer any reason why it doesnt work as according to the reg xfs makes no difference and the other differences between linux distro's shouldn't affect (i.e. filesystem layout)
:) If you have a big enough sample you can draw any conclusion you want.
Maybe its something to do with the version of mozilla. Mines an oldish nightly (2002042510) as none of the newer versions I've tried are anything like as stable/fast here. When loading a page with these huge fonts my mozilla just shows blank space where the fonts would be then stops processing it. The rest of the page loads fine and I cannot replicate any of the faults reported on lemuria.org
I wouldn't however state categorically from this that all slackware users are safe
You should make your own copy of their data then delete it. The day before a deadline is best. You tell them how its impossible to get the data back unless using the...*insert random geektalk*...method which is highly illegal, very difficult and only you can perform at a cost. After seperating them from their paycheck restore the data for them.
:)
That'll teach them to backup, and get you beer tokens
thanks for the explanation. That wasn't intended as a troll (seemed like a perfectly reasonable question to me). I just haven't brought any new CPUs for about 2 years now so haven't been following the market at all.
It's also worth mentioning that the second you attach that NT system to a LAN (or any other network iirc) it is no longer C2 certified.
Bit more info here
If you rely on NT's C2 security rating in your security decisions, you must keep in mind two important considerations. First, a C2 security rating is different from a C2 security certification. OSs and programs earn ratings, but individual installations must be certified. This distinction means that most NT installations are not C2 certified.
NT earned its C2 rating as a standalone system, with no networking enabled. If you take your C2Config C2-certified system and attach it to your LAN, your system loses its C2 certification.
Does anyone know why the chips are numbered about 500 over their MHz speed?
Isn't this bordering on false advertising...
A happy k6/2-400mhz user.
I've seen high people jump off of cliffs into a lake without checking the water first, drive down the road swirving between lanes, and play with knives and other harmful objects
To be honest I've seen straight people doing all this, so whats your point? If those people had been properly educated about the effects of the drugs then they would be less likely to get into these situations anyway. If I'm under the influence I probably am more likely to get hurt, thats my decision to make though. I used to go surfing loads and regularly broke bones doing that so should that have been illegal to protect me from myself?
There are enough reasons why cannabis is illegal, and they're all utter FUD except the health risks of cancer. The cancer side can be fixed by smoking through a vaporizer or eating the hash anyway. Pick your conspiracy theory really. My personal favourite is the Paper Pulp Industry one.
but the BBC pays for a big concert
:)
Actually the Queen paid for it. So I guess you could say indirectly we paid for it although she has many incomes other than that provided by the state so it's a moot point really.
we're told its a royalist revival!
I've not heard the BBC ever pushing that angle other than on some news shows asking the question "so is this a royalist revival?" but I have heard many open discussions on the BBC about whether we should even have a royal family anymore so it's not like they're only playing one side.
I always used to despise the Royal Family but after seeing then give a standing ovation to Ozzy Osbourne and Tommy Iommi doing Paranoid live on stage my opinion of them is changing
Well what about my freedom to walk down the street safely? Doesn't that count for anything?
g y as it *could* all be concevably abused by some future evil government(tm). Or how about putting everyone in prison. Because thats just one tiny little step down the road from putting cameras in public places isn't it.
I just can't see any logical arguments here except conspiracy stories. It's a millions miles difference the government putting cameras in public places where there is already no privacy to them putting cameras in our houses.
Why the hell do you all think because we let cameras in public we would then roll straight over and let them into our homes?
By these paranoid arguments we should get rid of all weapons/army/police/cars/planes/tv/radio/technolo
It's not a black and white issue of simply what prevents crime and what doesn't. It's a case of balancing the need for security with the needs for privacy (to avoid big brother syndrome). Putting everyone in the country in prison would prevent crime but that doesn't make it a good idea. Putting cameras in public isn't even really a compromise because as far as I'm concerned I only gain from it.
If any party here tried to put cameras in peoples houses they would be thrown out at the next election (or probably before). If any military government took over for whatever reason (e.g. a 1984 style ww3) and decided to put CCTV everywhere, they could do it anyway regardless of whether a public system was already in place.
I understand your arguments, I just can't see the British public or government ever buying into it. Maybe it's me being shortsighted but after hearing all the dodgy shit some politicians get up to I hardly think they're going to want cameras watching them all the time either.
You appear to have misunderstood me. I'm not saying "so what?" and letting it go by. I've made an informed decision that I'd rather we had the camera's than not have them and run a much higher risk of being shot/blown up/robbed/beaten up in public. I've read 1984 and the (imo much closer to the money) brave new world and they're both scary books. A little paranoia never did anyone any harm but there are perfectly valid reasons to have camera's on the streets other than some great orwellian conspiracy.
iirc neither in 1984 nor in brave new world were the oppressive regimes brought on as a "gradually eroding change", instead they were created fairly suddenly and violently by wars (I think, don't have either book to hand now) so it's not a great example.
Pretty horrid, I'd say.
We've had bombs placed in the centers of our cities, people being shot, mugged, raped and generally fucked over so whats wrong with putting up the cameras if they help prevent it, or at least track down the guilty person afterwards.
Why should I care if the police/govt/anyone watches me walk down the main street of town or sitting on a bus? I never understood the argument that they're invading our privacy by putting camera's in public places.
Saying a password is "hard" to brute-force is just a measure of statistical probability. Stranger things have happened than a person getting hit by lightning, or winning the lottery.
such as trojaned logins, being watched type it in, keystroke loggers, man-in-the-middle, trojaned ssh/telnet/etc...need I go on?
Cracking passwords via brute force is only one of a very long list of ways of getting the password, and pretty low down it unless you happen to have a very fat computer lying around.
Apart from the fact that we've had echelon setup to do this for years, although I think local police would need a damn good reason (i.e. suspected terrorism) to get this info.
It sounds like Verisign would only be able to do this after the courts had awarded a proper warrent. Currently the EU is trying to force companies to store digital network data regardless of whether that data is part of a criminal case or not. Go sign this if it sounds like a bad idea to you.
I'd stick a honeypot RIGHT NEXT to the secure server.
:)
I'd recommend you at least put a switch between them. If a honeypot that is literally right next to any production server gets cracked you risk having man-in-the-middle attacks run aswell as sniffing things like the ftp/email passes for the local segment.
Common sense would be running a honeypot anywhere but right next to the secure server
It depends what you mean by useful. It's perfectly possible to build a good functional website with some actual content using static pages. They're a helluva lot more useful than the millions of php nuke sites that have popped up everywhere imo.
./overflow it. For $100k did they really expect to be able to download something off packetstorm and walk straight off with the money?
And contains no interesting info, I'd bet. Exactly the hackers' point.
Whether a site has any interesting content has precisely sodall to do with whether that content is dynamically generated or not. It sounds more like the hackers were complaining that they could n't
Hey man, it's true I did take it once but I never swallowed. Please cease and decist :)
Having lived in the area of the Eden project for a long time I can tell you it wasn't totally done for enviromental reasons. I seem to remember it origonally being represented as more of a large experiment which would attract lots of tourists. It has however generated huge amounts of revenue for the area, £120mil being quoted for the first 12 months. It may not save much of the enviroment but it saves hundreds of businesses and jobs around here, and has paid for itself already. And it's not like we know everything there is to know about biology yet so more research isn't a bad thing.
:) Probably 95% of the land is countryside, we have 2 huge national parks that are protected. We're not in any great danger of running out of natural habitats here yet.
I totally agree with your arguments, I've not been to visit despite it only being 20 minutes away, but it's impossible to ignore the good it has done. Also don't forget the average slashdot reader probably isn't particularly interested in horticulture but this doesn't represent the population as a whole. I've met many people here who go up there regularly.
What is sad, is that within the next century, cheap imitations like this may be all we have left of nature.
You don't know much about the South West of England eh