No, this seems more like a Wozniak thing to me. I mean, cross Apple and the US festival, and you get this. (Well, subtract the music and beer from the end result).
Combine this with the fact that we just heard about Woz's new secret startup, which will have something to do with wirelessly connected PDAs that use GPS to change the world, and what have you got? Well, I guess that means you've got Apple, music, beer, 802.11, love-ins, teenagers, GPS, children, PDAs, global summits, and mediaglyphs all trying to change the world.
In thirty years we'll look back on all this and long for the days of guns, beer, and titties.
1) Not all buffer overflows deal with stack variables. Overruns in the data area might cause a crash, but there is less of a chance of security problems with them. Granted, there are still some fairly classic security issues that were caused by data-area overruns, but there's less of an issue with it overall.
2) The stack on the HP-PA RISC grows in the direction opposite of most other processors (it grows up not down). This occasionally impedes the production of ereet sploit code.
So, I'm leaning toward #2 as to why this isn't immediately exploitable on HPUX, and is therefore called "benign." It's just a guess, though.
No. That is a reference to a bug in telnetd, not login.
This problem (so I'm told, if anyone has any better info feel free to correct me) has to do with adding name=value pairs after the username when you login (which was a SysV only feature IIRC).
Let's get an arbitrator in there that will give me control of the domain cnn.com, because those are my initials, too. Some scum-sucking bottom-feeding arbitrator like WIPO certainly won't work for me, so I can't go there. If there's somebody on my side who's doing the arbitration instead, then I get to own cnn.com.
Hell, my friend used to be a coke-head. With the right arbitrator he can probably own coke.com. Screw that! I just named my dog "microsoft" so NOW guess what domain I get!
Ya know, my ex-girlfriend's name was "slashdot"... Maybe... Nah.
I'm not sure that I understand all of this. If the person filing the complaint can choose an arbitrator, then why isn't Slashdot an arbitrator? Or Stallman? Or Lessig? Or an Anonymous Coward?
Hmmmmm.
4.f. Selection of Provider The complainant shall select the Provider from among those approved by ICANN by submitting the complaint to that Provider.
OK. How do you become an approved provider? Well, the Approved Providers list is here. It says: "Additional providers may be approved soon. The above approvals are in effect until further notice at this web page" Nothing on how to become one.
Anybody have any ideas? I'd like to become a "Provider".
The following text(s) are from www.shared-source.org, which contains premises, criticisms and apologies that pertain to Open Source vs. M$ $hared $ource.
The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy
"forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product
instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future.
Furthermore, it [Open Source development model] has inherent security risks
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General
Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates
source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must
make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no
additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the
intellectual property of any organization making use of it.
In this sense, open source software based on the GPL mirrors the.com
business models that proved the least successful during the past year. They
ask software developers to give away for free the very thing they create that
is of greatest value in the hope that somehow they'll make money selling
something else. In effect, it puts at risk the continued vitality of the
independent software sector.
But as history has shown, while this type of model may have a place, it isn't
successful in building a mass market and making powerful, easy-to-use software
broadly accessible to consumers.
1) shall be available to all implementers worldwide, whether or not
they are W3C Members;
and
5) may be conditioned on payment of reasonable, non-discriminatory
royalties or fees;
are contradictory claims. Hell, (5) is a contradiction in and of itself since anything that is conditioned on payment discriminates against those who can't afford it. Combined with (1), however, this leads to questions.
Does "available to all implementers worldwide" include students?... students who would love to create an implementation but can't without the risk of being sued? Are you actually saying that some Okie college kid is going to have to pay The Man if he wants to write a piece of software that implements get_file_over_network()? Great. Scratch "all implementers".
Does "available to all implementers worldwide" include countries like Mexico who are already telling patent-holders where they can stick it? Or Cuba, where it is illegal in US law to do business? There is no way an implementer in Cuba could legally create an implementation of a standard based off of a patent held by a US patent holder -- not paying the patent holder would be illegal, and paying the patent holder would be illegal. Fuckin' great. Scratch "worldwide".
If you're going to include this RAND crap, then it needs to have exemptions for students, universitites, the worldwide poor, governments and government agencies, and those who write software for the public good. But then, who's left?
Why was this RAND stuff even included? Under what possible circumstance is the RF license deemed "not good enough"? The RF license already allows patented technologies to be included in a standard, and is already both "reasonable" AND "non-discriminatory". The ONLY difference between these licenses is the RAND cluse 5, and clause 5 is neither "reasonable" nor "non-discriminatory". Clause 5 is _inconsistent_ with RAND clause 1, and is therefore _unreasonable_. Clause 5 forbids some countries from creating implementations, and is therefore _discriminatory_. Scratch clause 5, scratch RAND, scratch all this contradictory garbage.
Replay is NOT going to be able to withstand the legal onslaught that will be unleashed upon them by the MPAA for all the "peer-to-peer replay-box" sharing bit....
I don't understand how anyone could claim that this should be illegal. The design mimics the capabilities of a VCR, and adds no new additional risk to copyright. A video tape can be played on anyone's VCR, and a replay data file (or whatever that may be) can be played on anyone's ReplayTV. I don't see any new infringement here.
I do agree, however, that the shit-eating MPAA and their cock-sucking fascist lawyers will probably lie to the courts and the public about the amount of money they lose due to fair use. Frankly, society should fuck those little bitches in the head with a chainsaw.
Banning Disco Inferno because of the WTC disaster is vomituous. They are actually drawing a comparison between the destruction of the WTC towers and people dancing in a burning building. It boggles the mind how these ClearChannel scumbags could be so despicably insensitive, not to mention suppressively anti-American.
Damn straight! I'd go one further, though. Since my employer is allowed to watch me, and they are in "public service", then the public should be allowed to watch everything they do on-line. That would seem fair.
Of course, getting rid of the spy crap altogether would probably be a better solution.
BattleBots was a registered trademark 16 months before this guy squatted on the domain.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but this is quoted from the first reply to bb(tm):
The trademark for Battlebots was not obtained by your client until October 24,
2000. Barrett registered the domain name "battlebots.org" in August, 2000
Registration Number
2397203
Registration Date
October 24, 2000
NSI records show that the bb.org domain record was created on "2000-08-28 06:52:41", as a previous user has already mentioned. It would seem that Barrett registered the domain about two months before bb(tm) had their (tm).
Main Entry: 1 privilege
Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
Date: 12th century
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
Damn. Where are the BLINK tags when you need them?
Slashdot Mirror
No, this seems more like a Wozniak thing to me. I mean, cross Apple and the US festival, and you get this. (Well, subtract the music and beer from the end result).
Combine this with the fact that we just heard about Woz's new secret startup, which will have something to do with wirelessly connected PDAs that use GPS to change the world, and what have you got? Well, I guess that means you've got Apple, music, beer, 802.11, love-ins, teenagers, GPS, children, PDAs, global summits, and mediaglyphs all trying to change the world.
In thirty years we'll look back on all this and long for the days of guns, beer, and titties.
(202)456-1414
Ask for George.
Two possibilities;
1) Not all buffer overflows deal with stack variables. Overruns in the data area might cause a crash, but there is less of a chance of security problems with them. Granted, there are still some fairly classic security issues that were caused by data-area overruns, but there's less of an issue with it overall.
2) The stack on the HP-PA RISC grows in the direction opposite of most other processors (it grows up not down). This occasionally impedes the production of ereet sploit code.
So, I'm leaning toward #2 as to why this isn't immediately exploitable on HPUX, and is therefore called "benign." It's just a guess, though.
No. That is a reference to a bug in telnetd, not login.
This problem (so I'm told, if anyone has any better info feel free to correct me) has to do with adding name=value pairs after the username when you login (which was a SysV only feature IIRC).
Hello? Exactly my point.
Let's get an arbitrator in there that will give me control of the domain cnn.com, because those are my initials, too. Some scum-sucking bottom-feeding arbitrator like WIPO certainly won't work for me, so I can't go there. If there's somebody on my side who's doing the arbitration instead, then I get to own cnn.com.
Hell, my friend used to be a coke-head. With the right arbitrator he can probably own coke.com. Screw that! I just named my dog "microsoft" so NOW guess what domain I get!
Ya know, my ex-girlfriend's name was "slashdot"... Maybe... Nah.
I'm not sure that I understand all of this. If the person filing the complaint can choose an arbitrator, then why isn't Slashdot an arbitrator? Or Stallman? Or Lessig? Or an Anonymous Coward?
Hmmmmm.
4.f. Selection of Provider The complainant shall select the Provider from among those approved by ICANN by submitting the complaint to that Provider.
OK. How do you become an approved provider? Well, the Approved Providers list is here. It says: "Additional providers may be approved soon. The above approvals are in effect until further notice at this web page" Nothing on how to become one.
Anybody have any ideas? I'd like to become a "Provider".
The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy
"forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product
instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future.
Furthermore, it [Open Source development model] has inherent security risks
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General
Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates
source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must
make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no
additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the
intellectual property of any organization making use of it.
In this sense, open source software based on the GPL mirrors the
business models that proved the least successful during the past year. They
ask software developers to give away for free the very thing they create that
is of greatest value in the hope that somehow they'll make money selling
something else. In effect, it puts at risk the continued vitality of the
independent software sector.
But as history has shown, while this type of model may have a place, it isn't
successful in building a mass market and making powerful, easy-to-use software
broadly accessible to consumers.
1) shall be available to all implementers worldwide, whether or not
... students who would love to create an implementation but can't without the risk of being sued? Are you actually saying that some Okie college kid is going to have to pay The Man if he wants to write a piece of software that implements get_file_over_network()? Great. Scratch "all implementers".
they are W3C Members;
and
5) may be conditioned on payment of reasonable, non-discriminatory
royalties or fees;
are contradictory claims. Hell, (5) is a contradiction in and of itself since anything that is conditioned on payment discriminates against those who can't afford it. Combined with (1), however, this leads to questions.
Does "available to all implementers worldwide" include students?
Does "available to all implementers worldwide" include countries like Mexico who are already telling patent-holders where they can stick it? Or Cuba, where it is illegal in US law to do business? There is no way an implementer in Cuba could legally create an implementation of a standard based off of a patent held by a US patent holder -- not paying the patent holder would be illegal, and paying the patent holder would be illegal. Fuckin' great. Scratch "worldwide".
If you're going to include this RAND crap, then it needs to have exemptions for students, universitites, the worldwide poor, governments and government agencies, and those who write software for the public good. But then, who's left?
Why was this RAND stuff even included? Under what possible circumstance is the RF license deemed "not good enough"? The RF license already allows patented technologies to be included in a standard, and is already both "reasonable" AND "non-discriminatory". The ONLY difference between these licenses is the RAND cluse 5, and clause 5 is neither "reasonable" nor "non-discriminatory". Clause 5 is _inconsistent_ with RAND clause 1, and is therefore _unreasonable_. Clause 5 forbids some countries from creating implementations, and is therefore _discriminatory_. Scratch clause 5, scratch RAND, scratch all this contradictory garbage.
-Brian
I don't understand how anyone could claim that this should be illegal. The design mimics the capabilities of a VCR, and adds no new additional risk to copyright. A video tape can be played on anyone's VCR, and a replay data file (or whatever that may be) can be played on anyone's ReplayTV. I don't see any new infringement here.
I do agree, however, that the shit-eating MPAA and their cock-sucking fascist lawyers will probably lie to the courts and the public about the amount of money they lose due to fair use. Frankly, society should fuck those little bitches in the head with a chainsaw.
Yah, I can see the itemization now.
Banning Disco Inferno because of the WTC disaster is vomituous. They are actually drawing a comparison between the destruction of the WTC towers and people dancing in a burning building. It boggles the mind how these ClearChannel scumbags could be so despicably insensitive, not to mention suppressively anti-American.
Afghan war."
That, and, well, come on, the song is really really bad.
Damn straight! I'd go one further, though. Since my employer is allowed to watch me, and they are in "public service", then the public should be allowed to watch everything they do on-line. That would seem fair.
Of course, getting rid of the spy crap altogether would probably be a better solution.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but this is quoted from the first reply to bb(tm):
The trademark for Battlebots was not obtained by your client until October 24,
2000. Barrett registered the domain name "battlebots.org" in August, 2000
Also, this is what the TESS has to say about when the trademark was registered:
Registration Number
2397203
Registration Date
October 24, 2000
NSI records show that the bb.org domain record was created on "2000-08-28 06:52:41", as a previous user has already mentioned. It would seem that Barrett registered the domain about two months before bb(tm) had their (tm).
Main Entry: 1 privilege
Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
Date: 12th century
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : PREROGATIVE; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office
Damn. Where are the BLINK tags when you need them?
There are also a couple of java backends to gcc. One of these is http://www.csee.uq.edu.au/~csmweb/uqbt.html#gcc-jv m from Christina Cifuentes at the UofQueensland.