Funny snippet for those with AIX 4.3.3
on
The Hype of the Rings
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Install bos.games, then look in/usr/lib/fortune/fortunes.dat:
"I cannot read the fiery letters," said Frodo in a quavering
voice.
"No," Said Gandalf, "but I can. The letters are Elvish, of course, of an ancient mode, but the language is that of Mordor, which I will not utter here. They are lines of a verse long known in
Elven-lore:
"This Ring, no other, is made by the elves,
Who'd pawn their own mother to grab it themselves.
Ruler of creeper, mortal, and scallop,
This is a sleeper that packs quite a wallop.
The Power almighty rests in this Lone Ring.
The Power, alrighty, for doing your Own Thing.
If broken or busted, it cannot be remade.
If found, send to Sorhed (with postage prepaid)."
Below is a copy of the letter which I sent to the Department of Justice.
---
Dear Department of Justice:
I have read the recent ruling and proposed resolution to the Microsoft anti-trust case. It is my strong belief that the proposed remedy will have almost NO IMPACT on the current market abuses by Microsoft.
There are three items in the proposed remedy that need to be brought to light:
- Microsoft was given a similar ruling in 1995 to disallow the bundling of Internet Explorer and Windows, in an attempt to prevent Microsoft from illegally leveraging its Desktop OS monopoly into the Web Browser market. Six years later, we see that Internet Explorer has over 90% of the web browser market. The Department of Justice FAILED to prevent Microsoft from illegally extending its monopoly into the Web browser market.
- Microsoft has dealings with OEMs which prevent them from installing any other operating system except for Windows on a new PC. The proposed remedy makes it more difficult for Microsoft to continue doing this. However, the issue that it fails to address is this: What other operating system would OEMs install? There could have been an opportunity two years ago to help out Be, Inc. gain a foothold with its superb desktop OS, but they are gone now due to Microsoft's abuse. This leaves Linux, (which is either a toy for hobbiest geeks or a server operating system), or OS/2. It's doubtful that OEMs would want to install either of these on a desktop PC. Thus we see that the Department of Justice IS FAILING to prevent Microsoft from continually reaping the benefits of its past illegal behaviour.
- The proposed remedy makes a provision to force Microsoft to disclose protocols to qualified 3rd parties for the purpose of interacting with its software. This alone could have been the single most important part of the remedy, if it hadn't been de-clawed by the "Security" except granted later on. Microsoft can propose that its implementation of the SMB / NetBIOS protocol uses password encryption, whose protocol cannot be published due to security concerns. Therefore, Microsoft will continue to keep that protocol a secret, and use it to enchance interoperability between Windows systems and destroy / eliminate interoperability with non-Microsoft systems. (such as Unix / Samba) The security clause in the remedy MUST BE REMOVED, or the Department of Justice WILL FAIL to prevent Microsoft from leveraging its desktop monopoly into a communications protocol monopoly.
Thus we see how the Department of Justice has failed, is currently failing, and will continue to fail to protect the industry from Microsoft, unless the proposed remedy is altered significantly to address past abuses, current abuses, and future abuses that inevitably will happen. I propose the following:
- Microsoft be forced to disclose _every_ protocol used for communication between two PCs, or between two separate services or programs on a single PC. This disclosure will be UNCONDITIONAL, regardless of the protocol's intended or actual use. (Note that this will not require the disclosure of encryption keys.) The availability documentation for said protocols must be prominently displayed on http://www.microsoft.com, and endorsed as enthusiastically as the current flagship product. The documentation must be available for free download in a simple, open format (such as HTML 1.0, or plain text), and must also be available for hardcopy , costing no more than the printing and shipping cost.
- Microsoft be forced to not make _any restriction whatsoever_ on the freedom of OEMs to modify, change, add to or delete from the hard drive of the system which they sell. OEMs must be given the ability to modify any and all parts of the PCs hard drive, regardless of whether that section of the hard drive contains a Microsoft product or a non-Microsoft product.
- To address the benefits that Microsoft currently enjoys due to past abuses: Microsoft be forced to make known the availablity of competing software products. (such as Red Hat Linux, Sun StarOffice, and Opera Software) The method by which Microsoft makes these products known shall be up to them, provided that they, at a minimum, display a link to at least one competing product on their home page for EACH of their own products featured on the same homepage. The link to the competing product must be as prominent and enthusiastically displayed as the link to Microsoft's own product. This specific remedy shall be in place for 3 years.
While it is doubtful that my proposed changes would have a significant impact on the Desktop OS monopoly, it would raise awareness of the availabily of competing products and ensure that those products are able to interoperate with Microsoft's. It is my hope that the Department of Justice will consider these changes and avoid falling into the same pitfall which they previously have, are currently, and are about to fall into.
I agree with you on this one. My main question is this: Why would publishing the algorithm or source code invalidate the method? Look at all the protocols out there: SSH, IPSec, Kerberos, SSL, etc. The protocols are widely known and some are even published in freely available documents. But whether or not the protocols are known doesn't make a difference, since the real security lies in keeping the keys a secret.
If Microsoft thinks that they can use an encryption scheme which relies soley upon the protocol for its security, then it's worthless: The protocol can and will be broken eventually. It's just another case of security through obscurity. You might as well move an unpatched IIS service to port 81 instead of 80, in an effort to prevent it from being exploited. Given time, it will be found out and broken into.
I think the real solution is to force Microsoft, IBM, Intel, et al. to publish _every_ communication protocol they use in a freely and widely available format. Any security protocol worth anything will not make the assumption that nobody can figure it out, since the real strength should lie in the selection of keys, passwords, and exchange methods.
The DOJ should force companies to effectively make DRM an open standard, and guard the keys carefully, not the protocol.
Yes. At SecurityFocus, there's a list of vendors that have supplied a patch for the kernel used in their distribution. But for me, (as a Slackware 7.1 user, and therefore a 2.2.16 kernel user), this 2.2.20 is a definite good thing. I had toyed around with the idea of getting the kernel from some other distro and apply that distro vendor's patch. It probably would have been a decent enough solution, but being able to simply upgrade to 2.2.20 is going to be a lot cleaner.
The reason they did it is so that you can't disparage Microsoft. After all, why would software provide a feature that violate its own EULA? The next step is to add a "context-sensitive" thesaurus, which would offer suggestions that make more sense within its scope.
For example:
Bill Gates is an idiot. Suggestions: Cool Guy, Stud, Pimp Daddy, etc.
If the Work normally reads commands interactively when run,
you must cause it, at each time the Work commences operation,
to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright
notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying
that you provide a warranty).
~:$ cp 1.txt 2.txt
cp: THE SERVICE AND SOFTWARE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES THAT THE SOFTWARE AND THE SERVICE ARE (A) FREE OF DEFECTS OR ERRORS, (B) VIRUS FREE, (C) ABLE TO...
There's got to be an easy way to mass-produce hydrogen. That's what the Hindenburg used for lift, right? That's 7,062,100 cubic feet of Hydrogen gas right there.
For those who don't live in the Washington D.C. area, we recently had the Digital Edge Expo at the Convention Center. Among other cool things (such as a virtual-reality rollercoaster and Nascar racing), they had the ActiveMedia robot running around on the floor next to the ComCast booths! I spent more time playing with it than asking questions about how to ran; had I known it was running Linux I would have definitely been more interested in what's under the hood.
If you're interested in building a similair robot but don't have the money for an embedded-x86 architechture, take a look at the Basic Stamp from Jameco. It's a great way to get started with your own embedded projects.
One thing you have to realize is that to a manager looking to grow his division, the situation you described might not be an entirely bad thing. On a more subtle level, it could even be considered a good thing.
Think about this: There's an IT manager who has a single Netware server, and two CNAs. One day he makes a decision to replace that single Netware server with 15 NT servers and 10 MCPs. Suddenly, the manager who formerly had 2 direct reportees and a $100,000 budget now has 10 direct reportees and a $500,000 budget. He just made his position a whole lot more important.
Surreptuously they monitor the stuff on your PC
If you add a CD-ROM drive, you will pay a licence fee.
Surely you did not expect that things this good are free?
Our licence marches on!
Glory, glory, "Activation"!
"Fair use" earns our defecation!
Crackers get eternal damnation!
Our licence marches on!
I am wondering the same thing. Here's what's really got me thinking:
As it turns out, the region in question could not be much larger than the diameter of Earth's orbit around the sun, or about 20 times the size of the hole's event horizon.
It seems like the emissions come from a region somewhere outside the black hole's event horizon, thus we're able to see them. But IANAS - anyone with more insight willing to post?
This negligence from Microsoft should be addressed with a class action lawsuit.
...exept for the fact that you already clicked the "Accept" button.
"...NO WARRANTIES. Microsoft expressly disclaims any warranty for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and any related documentation is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties or merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with you."
Slashdot Mirror
"I cannot read the fiery letters," said Frodo in a quavering voice.
"No," Said Gandalf, "but I can. The letters are Elvish, of course, of an ancient mode, but the language is that of Mordor, which I will not utter here. They are lines of a verse long known in Elven-lore:
It's too bad they don't just make a new TLD ".sucks". Then all the anti-[whatever] sites could be filed in there.
Below is a copy of the letter which I sent to the Department of Justice.
---
Dear Department of Justice:
I have read the recent ruling and proposed resolution to the Microsoft anti-trust case. It is my strong belief that the proposed remedy will have almost NO IMPACT on the current market abuses by Microsoft.
There are three items in the proposed remedy that need to be brought to light:
- Microsoft was given a similar ruling in 1995 to disallow the bundling of Internet Explorer and Windows, in an attempt to prevent Microsoft from illegally leveraging its Desktop OS monopoly into the Web Browser market. Six years later, we see that Internet Explorer has over 90% of the web browser market. The Department of Justice FAILED to prevent Microsoft from illegally extending its monopoly into the Web browser market.
- Microsoft has dealings with OEMs which prevent them from installing any other operating system except for Windows on a new PC. The proposed remedy makes it more difficult for Microsoft to continue doing this. However, the issue that it fails to address is this: What other operating system would OEMs install? There could have been an opportunity two years ago to help out Be, Inc. gain a foothold with its superb desktop OS, but they are gone now due to Microsoft's abuse. This leaves Linux, (which is either a toy for hobbiest geeks or a server operating system), or OS/2. It's doubtful that OEMs would want to install either of these on a desktop PC. Thus we see that the Department of Justice IS FAILING to prevent Microsoft from continually reaping the benefits of its past illegal behaviour.
- The proposed remedy makes a provision to force Microsoft to disclose protocols to qualified 3rd parties for the purpose of interacting with its software. This alone could have been the single most important part of the remedy, if it hadn't been de-clawed by the "Security" except granted later on. Microsoft can propose that its implementation of the SMB / NetBIOS protocol uses password encryption, whose protocol cannot be published due to security concerns. Therefore, Microsoft will continue to keep that protocol a secret, and use it to enchance interoperability between Windows systems and destroy / eliminate interoperability with non-Microsoft systems. (such as Unix / Samba) The security clause in the remedy MUST BE REMOVED, or the Department of Justice WILL FAIL to prevent Microsoft from leveraging its desktop monopoly into a communications protocol monopoly.
Thus we see how the Department of Justice has failed, is currently failing, and will continue to fail to protect the industry from Microsoft, unless the proposed remedy is altered significantly to address past abuses, current abuses, and future abuses that inevitably will happen. I propose the following:
- Microsoft be forced to disclose _every_ protocol used for communication between two PCs, or between two separate services or programs on a single PC. This disclosure will be UNCONDITIONAL, regardless of the protocol's intended or actual use. (Note that this will not require the disclosure of encryption keys.) The availability documentation for said protocols must be prominently displayed on http://www.microsoft.com, and endorsed as enthusiastically as the current flagship product. The documentation must be available for free download in a simple, open format (such as HTML 1.0, or plain text), and must also be available for hardcopy , costing no more than the printing and shipping cost.
- Microsoft be forced to not make _any restriction whatsoever_ on the freedom of OEMs to modify, change, add to or delete from the hard drive of the system which they sell. OEMs must be given the ability to modify any and all parts of the PCs hard drive, regardless of whether that section of the hard drive contains a Microsoft product or a non-Microsoft product.
- To address the benefits that Microsoft currently enjoys due to past abuses: Microsoft be forced to make known the availablity of competing software products. (such as Red Hat Linux, Sun StarOffice, and Opera Software) The method by which Microsoft makes these products known shall be up to them, provided that they, at a minimum, display a link to at least one competing product on their home page for EACH of their own products featured on the same homepage. The link to the competing product must be as prominent and enthusiastically displayed as the link to Microsoft's own product. This specific remedy shall be in place for 3 years.
While it is doubtful that my proposed changes would have a significant impact on the Desktop OS monopoly, it would raise awareness of the availabily of competing products and ensure that those products are able to interoperate with Microsoft's. It is my hope that the Department of Justice will consider these changes and avoid falling into the same pitfall which they previously have, are currently, and are about to fall into.
Sincerely,
(name removed to protect the innocent)
I agree with you on this one. My main question is this: Why would publishing the algorithm or source code invalidate the method? Look at all the protocols out there: SSH, IPSec, Kerberos, SSL, etc. The protocols are widely known and some are even published in freely available documents. But whether or not the protocols are known doesn't make a difference, since the real security lies in keeping the keys a secret.
If Microsoft thinks that they can use an encryption scheme which relies soley upon the protocol for its security, then it's worthless: The protocol can and will be broken eventually. It's just another case of security through obscurity. You might as well move an unpatched IIS service to port 81 instead of 80, in an effort to prevent it from being exploited. Given time, it will be found out and broken into.
I think the real solution is to force Microsoft, IBM, Intel, et al. to publish _every_ communication protocol they use in a freely and widely available format. Any security protocol worth anything will not make the assumption that nobody can figure it out, since the real strength should lie in the selection of keys, passwords, and exchange methods.
The DOJ should force companies to effectively make DRM an open standard, and guard the keys carefully, not the protocol.
Yes. At SecurityFocus, there's a list of vendors that have supplied a patch for the kernel used in their distribution. But for me, (as a Slackware 7.1 user, and therefore a 2.2.16 kernel user), this 2.2.20 is a definite good thing. I had toyed around with the idea of getting the kernel from some other distro and apply that distro vendor's patch. It probably would have been a decent enough solution, but being able to simply upgrade to 2.2.20 is going to be a lot cleaner.
I, for one, am really glad to see that Linux is supporting our national parks. Heaven knows that we geeks need to get outdoors once and a while.
The reason they did it is so that you can't disparage Microsoft. After all, why would software provide a feature that violate its own EULA? The next step is to add a "context-sensitive" thesaurus, which would offer suggestions that make more sense within its scope.
For example: .
Bill Gates is an idiot
Suggestions: Cool Guy, Stud, Pimp Daddy, etc.
It reminds me of an old joke about Microsoft making cars:
What are you talking about? Please locate any occurence of "Microsoft" in Section 5 of the below document:
RFC1541
If the Work normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, at each time the Work commences operation, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty).
~:$ cp 1.txt 2.txt
cp: THE SERVICE AND SOFTWARE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS," WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES THAT THE SOFTWARE AND THE SERVICE ARE (A) FREE OF DEFECTS OR ERRORS, (B) VIRUS FREE, (C) ABLE TO...
There's got to be an easy way to mass-produce hydrogen. That's what the Hindenburg used for lift, right? That's 7,062,100 cubic feet of Hydrogen gas right there.
SOL.EXE
Whoops. Yes, I was thinking of the old record kind. Guess maybe I should click on a link or two before knee-jerk posting, eh? :)
..who repairs jukeboxes. Do you live in the Washington, D.C. area?
Forget about forward velocity - How'd you like to have that thin rubber tire rotating at ~400RPM only a few inches from your nads?
For those who don't live in the Washington D.C. area, we recently had the Digital Edge Expo at the Convention Center. Among other cool things (such as a virtual-reality rollercoaster and Nascar racing), they had the ActiveMedia robot running around on the floor next to the ComCast booths! I spent more time playing with it than asking questions about how to ran; had I known it was running Linux I would have definitely been more interested in what's under the hood.
If you're interested in building a similair robot but don't have the money for an embedded-x86 architechture, take a look at the Basic Stamp from Jameco. It's a great way to get started with your own embedded projects.
Project Ägypten will focus on making Open Source email programs KMail and mutt compatible with Sphinx
They're modifying KMail and mutt to work with Sphinx, not the other way around (as the post implies).
One thing you have to realize is that to a manager looking to grow his division, the situation you described might not be an entirely bad thing. On a more subtle level, it could even be considered a good thing.
Think about this: There's an IT manager who has a single Netware server, and two CNAs. One day he makes a decision to replace that single Netware server with 15 NT servers and 10 MCPs. Suddenly, the manager who formerly had 2 direct reportees and a $100,000 budget now has 10 direct reportees and a $500,000 budget. He just made his position a whole lot more important.
But you better turn off the Webcam first. :)
Study Finds Low Use Of Steganography On Internet
Just goes to show how good it is.
Surreptuously they monitor the stuff on your PC
If you add a CD-ROM drive, you will pay a licence fee.
Surely you did not expect that things this good are free?
Our licence marches on!
Glory, glory, "Activation"!
"Fair use" earns our defecation!
Crackers get eternal damnation!
Our licence marches on!
Microsoft:
The conditions in the market have their plans in pits of tar,
We have had enough of Upgrades, we are fine with where we are.
If ONE is all they're selling, they will never get to far,
Their bottom line is sunk!
As it turns out, the region in question could not be much larger than the diameter of Earth's orbit around the sun, or about 20 times the size of the hole's event horizon.
It seems like the emissions come from a region somewhere outside the black hole's event horizon, thus we're able to see them. But IANAS - anyone with more insight willing to post?
This negligence from Microsoft should be addressed with a class action lawsuit.
...exept for the fact that you already clicked the "Accept" button.
"...NO WARRANTIES. Microsoft expressly disclaims any warranty for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT and any related documentation is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, the implied warranties or merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or noninfringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT remains with you."
No kidding, I'll bet that BIOS would spend at least 3 seconds waiting for my hard drive to spin up.