Privact issues aside, A woman misidentified a photo of someone as her exhusband, who was wanted by police. Police want to use software to match mugshots of wanted crooks against surveillence photos off the streets. If a woman couldn't correctly ID someone she knew, how can the police expect an automated system to do the same?
think back to your college physics classes. A wavelength is the distance from the start of the wave until the it starts repeating. The number of complete waves in one second is the frequency measured in Hz (in a CPU, this is the clock speed). Hence, only the rising edge is of significance in determining the clock speed of a CPU, not both rising and falling edges.
Keep in mind all I discuss is a rumor. I do not know the truth of it, the guy I head it from said he recalls it from back in the early 90s. But maybe this is an explanation as to why a G4 500 MHz OS-X and a P3 1GHz RedHat 6.2 both wallclock the same result for the same program.
Maybe so, but the tests i'm talking about are ones a co-worker of mine had done using the same C program compiled on a Linux box and an OS-X box, both compiled using gcc. The program itself is proprietary, but I can say it involved a rather complex math algorithm. The timing element was a wallclock. Result was approximately the same amount of processing time.
Based on what? The MHz? The G4 500 Mhz performs roughly the same as PIII 1 Ghz. I heard a rumor recently that may explain this MHz myth on why Apple's chips haven't hit the GHz barrier yet: Intel and their x86 competitors (AMD, etc) count both the rising edge and falling edge of the clock cycle, while Motorola (makers of the Apple CPUs) count only the rising edge.
uhg, that's what happens when you try to rush yourself out of the office on fridays....i meant to say "adding some features to their OS" instead of "adding features to their OS". Or may be I meant "they are partially correct by that statement" Hell i dont care, i just hope i got the gist of my point across.
yes i have. That's why it was hell. How many average users know about that? Besides, some programs just switch the default program from another program to theirs anyway, so that just adds to it.
Mcorsoft insists they are adding features to their OS simply because it's what users want. They are correct by that statement. Personally, I like Windows Media Player and IE. But I only like WMP for some formats, I use other programs (QuickTime, RealPlayer, and WinAmp) for most multimedia clips.
What MS is failing to do is give te consumers ability to use a different program for in a lot of cases. Getting those other programs to be the default for the formats I want took hell.
Apple has already provided QuickTime within OS-X, so MS could make the argument 'Why isn't Apple being tortured?' Because QuickTime will allow another program to use it's formats. If MS would recognize that, then MS would still be the pet peeve they are, just not on the audio/video front.
I understand your logic in some machines not being cleaned, having incorrect time, etc. But this particular system had no attempts between July 21-31, so I fail to see how that affects the spread of the worm. Besides, the worm was programmed to lay dormant from July 20-31. There was only one hit on July 20, most likely from an incorrect clock on the infected machine.
I just checked the log again, as of 9:35am EDT august 3, there have been 40 attempts. A closer look at the log shows as little as 10 minutes to as much as 5 hours between attempts.
Check your own logs:
cd <your-apache-install-dir>/logs
grep NNNNN access_log
The NNNN is part of the HTTP request issued by the worm itself, as you will see.
For whatever reason, I can't connect to Time.com to get the article, so I'll ramble about an observation I've made:
A machine at a research lab at school runs apache. In the access_log, from July 18-20, it had 18 attempts from a Code Red infected machine to spread the worm. (Naturally the attempt fails, cuz it's apache) But from August 1st through 'til about 9pm (EDT) last night (Aug 2), 36 attempts. So the question is - If the worm is spreading slower, why is it this one system has had more attempts of spreading this time around than the first?
I beleive ISPs should provide some level of support for handling viruses. A lot of ISPs already do filter for viruses. Symantec offers products that retrofit themselves onto mail servers to automatically reject viruses from being sent and reject viruses from entering. Or at least generate an automatic email to the sender/receiver/mail admin that a virus was spotted in the mail stream and temporarily hold it until advised on what to do. Unfortnately, the same product can also be used by your boss as spy-ware.
Out of curiosity of my own - I've noticed other sites using slashcode use the windows 4-color flag logo as MS's icon. Did/. at one time use that too? Or did MS cite tm and (c) violations, hence the reason we now have a lovely picture of Bill Gates? Basically I'm asking how did the MS/Borg icon become the icon for MS stories?
Perhaps a solution would be JavaScript policy files, anaogoulos to those used by sysadmins in the systems they admin. A lot of sites use Javascript ethically and for legit purposes, but some sites exploit JavaScript functions that have no real purpose except to annoy people (like pop-under ads, changing homepages, pop ups when leaving a site, etc). By having policy files, one could configure their browser to allow some JavaScript, but not all. This way we dont shutoff JavaScript entirely and lose the benefits it adds to some sites. Maybe someone could integrate this into Mozilla?
CT:Link removed. Why would we send these dicks traffic?
How 'bout this: We attempt to have the server slashdotted and possibly go offline. Everyone turn off JavaScript in your browsers and we'll allow Taco to post the link. Everyone cuth with that? Even if that doesn't work, just reprogram Code Red to set it's sights on that server as opposed to the whitehouse
javascript and java are two things that somehow wound up with similar names. Java is for applets, while javascript allows more interactive webpages, and probably is the culprit in this home page hijacking case.
Something similar has happened to me before, while other sites ask "Would you to set your homepage to...?" I wonder if the ability for a site to do that without a pop up asking permission could be considered a security hole that MS should make a patch for, as one site modified my Windows registry to make that site the 'default' home page.
Vast majority of teachers use POP3 or IMAP w/ a cache. Those teachers have to download the email message to his machine, meaning that the email "affected" the machine by having the email placed on it. So is the mail server, as we see below:
Other teachers leave the email on the mail server itself, where they can telnet to it and run pine or something (web interface, etc). But in this case, the mail server was "affected" by having the email put there for the teacher to receive. The teacher's computer is still "affected" because the bytes generated by the display of the email in the telnet window still have to be sent from the server to the teacher's telnet window.
Besides, you would be able to tell a judge exactly what you were doing, while all the teacher could say "he's hacking his grades." Being able to take an AP CS class requires good grades to begin with, so why would someone want to make A's into something else?
We've all the heard the story about that college student who was kicked out of his school's library for using pine.
In your case, the princpal knows you as an honest honer student (let's hope), so the principal would be able to argue back to the teacher (or whoever wrote you up) in your defense.
But as for building gcc, if you were to modify the actual installation, that could be a problem. It sounds like that SA shouldn't be working in a high school environment, but rather as the SA for a HR dept, where no one knows squat about computers.
So what will this proposed legislation do to prevent that from happening?
It's a simple one: Deter. It's designed as a deterrent to people who are thinking about doing this. Just like high school's teach sex ed to make students aware of what can happen, with the end purpose of avoiding teen pregnancy, laws like this are intended to establish "the line" between what's right and wrong. It won't stop stuff from happening, but it will lessen it, as seen by rates in teen pregnancy going down in recent years.
Numerous times in the past year, one or both of my teachers has received either blatant threats, hate mail, or nuisance emails to their personal email accounts
You are in a unique position to actually see the good a law like this is capable of. Incidents like the ones you describe are the type of things Toricelli is aiming to punish for. Shenanagans like that are already taking place, someone from I think Florida was arrested for sending a threatening email to a student from a high school that was victimized by a high-profile shooting.
Today's politicians, judges, lawyers, etc. all grew up and went through a large part of their lives w/o computers, hence some laws, like this one, overstep the bounds of their intentions. Whereas today's college Law student (at least those at the good Ivy League law schools (sorry, I go to school down the sreet from UPenn)) have computers of their own, and hence the better chances of understanding how they work, as assuradly there will a CS/Law double major, or at least law students with high interest in computing, computer law, and intellectual property issues. As time moves forward, more judges/politicians/etc will retire and such, and more computer-savvy politicians will take their place. Only then will sensible laws regarding and regulating the world of computers will come about.
Slashdot Mirror
Privact issues aside, A woman misidentified a photo of someone as her exhusband, who was wanted by police. Police want to use software to match mugshots of wanted crooks against surveillence photos off the streets. If a woman couldn't correctly ID someone she knew, how can the police expect an automated system to do the same?
Keep in mind all I discuss is a rumor. I do not know the truth of it, the guy I head it from said he recalls it from back in the early 90s. But maybe this is an explanation as to why a G4 500 MHz OS-X and a P3 1GHz RedHat 6.2 both wallclock the same result for the same program.
Maybe so, but the tests i'm talking about are ones a co-worker of mine had done using the same C program compiled on a Linux box and an OS-X box, both compiled using gcc. The program itself is proprietary, but I can say it involved a rather complex math algorithm. The timing element was a wallclock. Result was approximately the same amount of processing time.
Based on what? The MHz? The G4 500 Mhz performs roughly the same as PIII 1 Ghz. I heard a rumor recently that may explain this MHz myth on why Apple's chips haven't hit the GHz barrier yet: Intel and their x86 competitors (AMD, etc) count both the rising edge and falling edge of the clock cycle, while Motorola (makers of the Apple CPUs) count only the rising edge.
uhg, that's what happens when you try to rush yourself out of the office on fridays....i meant to say "adding some features to their OS" instead of "adding features to their OS". Or may be I meant "they are partially correct by that statement" Hell i dont care, i just hope i got the gist of my point across.
yes i have. That's why it was hell. How many average users know about that? Besides, some programs just switch the default program from another program to theirs anyway, so that just adds to it.
What MS is failing to do is give te consumers ability to use a different program for in a lot of cases. Getting those other programs to be the default for the formats I want took hell.
Apple has already provided QuickTime within OS-X, so MS could make the argument 'Why isn't Apple being tortured?' Because QuickTime will allow another program to use it's formats. If MS would recognize that, then MS would still be the pet peeve they are, just not on the audio/video front.
I just checked the log again, as of 9:35am EDT august 3, there have been 40 attempts. A closer look at the log shows as little as 10 minutes to as much as 5 hours between attempts.
Check your own logs:
cd <your-apache-install-dir>/logs
grep NNNNN access_log
The NNNN is part of the HTTP request issued by the worm itself, as you will see.
Include something about aliens and/or Hollywood sex scandles.
A machine at a research lab at school runs apache. In the access_log, from July 18-20, it had 18 attempts from a Code Red infected machine to spread the worm. (Naturally the attempt fails, cuz it's apache) But from August 1st through 'til about 9pm (EDT) last night (Aug 2), 36 attempts. So the question is - If the worm is spreading slower, why is it this one system has had more attempts of spreading this time around than the first?
Disclaimer: I am not a Symantec employee. To prove it, McAfee has their own product.
I beleive ISPs should provide some level of support for handling viruses. A lot of ISPs already do filter for viruses. Symantec offers products that retrofit themselves onto mail servers to automatically reject viruses from being sent and reject viruses from entering. Or at least generate an automatic email to the sender/receiver/mail admin that a virus was spotted in the mail stream and temporarily hold it until advised on what to do. Unfortnately, the same product can also be used by your boss as spy-ware.
And i'm sure someone could say the same for Windows Scripting Host
Out of curiosity of my own - I've noticed other sites using slashcode use the windows 4-color flag logo as MS's icon. Did /. at one time use that too? Or did MS cite tm and (c) violations, hence the reason we now have a lovely picture of Bill Gates? Basically I'm asking how did the MS/Borg icon become the icon for MS stories?
Perhaps a solution would be JavaScript policy files, anaogoulos to those used by sysadmins in the systems they admin. A lot of sites use Javascript ethically and for legit purposes, but some sites exploit JavaScript functions that have no real purpose except to annoy people (like pop-under ads, changing homepages, pop ups when leaving a site, etc). By having policy files, one could configure their browser to allow some JavaScript, but not all. This way we dont shutoff JavaScript entirely and lose the benefits it adds to some sites. Maybe someone could integrate this into Mozilla?
How 'bout this: We attempt to have the server slashdotted and possibly go offline. Everyone turn off JavaScript in your browsers and we'll allow Taco to post the link. Everyone cuth with that? Even if that doesn't work, just reprogram Code Red to set it's sights on that server as opposed to the whitehouse
javascript and java are two things that somehow wound up with similar names. Java is for applets, while javascript allows more interactive webpages, and probably is the culprit in this home page hijacking case.
Something similar has happened to me before, while other sites ask "Would you to set your homepage to ...?" I wonder if the ability for a site to do that without a pop up asking permission could be considered a security hole that MS should make a patch for, as one site modified my Windows registry to make that site the 'default' home page.
Other teachers leave the email on the mail server itself, where they can telnet to it and run pine or something (web interface, etc). But in this case, the mail server was "affected" by having the email put there for the teacher to receive. The teacher's computer is still "affected" because the bytes generated by the display of the email in the telnet window still have to be sent from the server to the teacher's telnet window.
Why Leahy? Toricelli's the one who proposed this crap.
Besides, you would be able to tell a judge exactly what you were doing, while all the teacher could say "he's hacking his grades." Being able to take an AP CS class requires good grades to begin with, so why would someone want to make A's into something else?
In your case, the princpal knows you as an honest honer student (let's hope), so the principal would be able to argue back to the teacher (or whoever wrote you up) in your defense.
But as for building gcc, if you were to modify the actual installation, that could be a problem. It sounds like that SA shouldn't be working in a high school environment, but rather as the SA for a HR dept, where no one knows squat about computers.
It's a simple one: Deter. It's designed as a deterrent to people who are thinking about doing this. Just like high school's teach sex ed to make students aware of what can happen, with the end purpose of avoiding teen pregnancy, laws like this are intended to establish "the line" between what's right and wrong. It won't stop stuff from happening, but it will lessen it, as seen by rates in teen pregnancy going down in recent years.
You are in a unique position to actually see the good a law like this is capable of. Incidents like the ones you describe are the type of things Toricelli is aiming to punish for. Shenanagans like that are already taking place, someone from I think Florida was arrested for sending a threatening email to a student from a high school that was victimized by a high-profile shooting.
Today's politicians, judges, lawyers, etc. all grew up and went through a large part of their lives w/o computers, hence some laws, like this one, overstep the bounds of their intentions. Whereas today's college Law student (at least those at the good Ivy League law schools (sorry, I go to school down the sreet from UPenn)) have computers of their own, and hence the better chances of understanding how they work, as assuradly there will a CS/Law double major, or at least law students with high interest in computing, computer law, and intellectual property issues. As time moves forward, more judges/politicians/etc will retire and such, and more computer-savvy politicians will take their place. Only then will sensible laws regarding and regulating the world of computers will come about.