Granted, the average Joe User can be an idiot, but part of the ISP's job is to make the Internet more idiot-proof.
The Internet is not AOL. The "idiots" computer is part of the Internet when it's connected. The ISP's job is to provide network connectivity to the rest of the network - NOT to make the Internet more idiot proof.
But I would like to see parallel boot processing become mainstream rather than having to be hand-tuned for each box or config.
This has advantages for systems requiring a reasonably high level of availability (providing a faster restart time after planned or unplanned outages), and for those users who use linux as their daily desktop or laptop.
You can also purchase an IBM UK keyboard from IBM. Browse to http://www.pc.ibm.com/uk/accessories/ and find the part number for the accessory you are after (31P7450 is the part number for a black 104 key keyboard), and order it from 1-888-SHOP-IBM (their US based online shop does not stock UK parts). The approx retail price for the keyboard is about #28.00 (~US$45) or so.
"The data contained in Go Daddy Software, Inc.'s WHOIS database,while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided "as is"with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. Thisinformation is provided for the sole purpose of assisting youin obtaining information about domain name registration records.Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior writtenpermission of Go Daddy Software, Inc. By submitting an inquiry,you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular,you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible,dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for anypurpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising andand solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agreenot to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronicprocesses designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose,including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes. Please note: the owner of the domain name is specifiedin the "registrant" field. In most cases, Go Daddy Software, Inc. is not the owner of domain names listed in this database.Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States Registered through: Go Daddy Software (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: BETA-7.COM Created on: 18-Jun-03 Expires on: 18-Jun-04 Last Updated on: 19-Jun-03 Administrative Contact: Private, Registration BETA-7.COM@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Technical Contact: Private, Registration BETA-7.COM@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Domain servers in listed order: NS.RACKSPACE.COM NS2.RACKSPACE.COM"
3.) "Except as otherwise permitted by the NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop features described below, you may not use the Product to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other executable software residing on the Workstation Computer, nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display, or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless the Device has a separate license for the Product."
Microsoft could also argue that you may not use the product for anything other than for NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop, since using any devices attached directly or indirectly would cause code to be executed, which is expressly prohibited in this clause. This would make the PC fairly useless.
Sounds like Microsoft got a cut-price lawyer to create their licensing agreement.
Anti-terror laws 'will curb research' By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
NEW laws designed to keep sensitive scientific information out of the hands of terrorists will entangle universities in red tape and force researchers abroad, leading scientists and academics said yesterday.fnord
The Export Control Bill, which returns to the House of Commons today, would jeopardise academic freedom and international collaborations involving British scientists by forcing thousands of them to be vetted before publishing research.fnord
The proposed legislation is designed to curb the spread of data that could help terrorists or hostile states to develop weapons of mass destruction, by requiring export licences for any studies that might help them At present, while exports of physical goods require a licence if they have a potential military application, there are no such restrictions on ideas or information.fnord
While the Bill's goal is widely accepted, scientists are alarmed that it has been drafted so broadly. Researchers in fields such as computer science, medicine, aerodynamics and even mathematics, as well as in the more obvious areas of nuclear physics and microbiology, could find their work subjected to a costly and time-consuming licensing process.fnord
Many routine academic communications with foreign colleagues would also need permission, making it harder for British researchers to join international teams. Universities have been given legal advice that they would have to submit foreign students for vetting before agreeing to teach or employ them. The overall result will be extra bureaucracy that could cost laboratories hundreds of thousands of pounds, delay research and even persuade some scientists to move abroad.fnord
An amendment introduced in the House of Lords, which would enshrine the concept of academic freedom except where specifically defined by Parliament, is expected to be overturned by the Government in the Commons.fnord
Peter Cotgreave, director of the Save British Science Society, said that the Bill was well intentioned but excessive. "Of course we do not want information that could help terrorists getting out, but the way this legislation is framed means it could embrace almost anything," he said.fnord
"If I took ten random studies from this week's issue of Nature, it wouldn't take more than an hour to think of a way in which any could be used for something dangerous. We need a much clearer definition of what is excluded, in the primary legislation."fnord
A microbiologist sequencing the genome of pathogens such as E.coli O157, for example, would almost certainly need a licence, but so, too, could computer scientists or mathematicians whose work could be applied to cryptography. "Even an ecologist's work could be used by a terrorist looking to find a way to attack crops," Dr Cotgreave said.fnord
At present, the Bill allows the Trade and Industry Secretary broad discretion on what does and does not require a licence, with specific areas to be named in secondary legislation that can be changed without parliamentary approval.fnord
A spokesman for Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors and principals, said: "We have no concern about the present Government's intentions, but to put sweeping powers like this in place is dangerous. The definition is very wide and almost all areas of science and technology could fall within it. Primary legislation set by Parliament is the most appropriate place for determining what the law applies to."fnord
The Association of University Teachers, the Royal Society, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the Bill's implications. Robert Key, the Shadow Science Minister, said: "This is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for scientists."fnord
Researchers would feel that they had to submit anything for vetting that might possibly have a nefarious use. The fear was that the legislation would threaten British scientific research, making it more likely that scientists would be tempted abroad. A spokeswoman for the Department of Trade and Industry said that it had already amended the original draft to protect scientists' right to publish information already in the public domain, and that it was not intended to limit researchers or add to their bureaucratic workload.fnord
"We do not want to curb academic freedom, but we can't accept loopholes that could contribute to weapons of mass destruction," she said. "If an academic, industry, charity or anyone else is concerned that what they are doing might require an export licence, the DTI has an advice line that people can telephone to check whether or not what they propose to do requires a licence.fnord
"A telephone call need not be time-consuming or bureaucratic."fnord
Can someone explain to me how the Kazaa/Verizon deal would not eventually end up being RIAA with a different name? I'd wager that that the artist does not see the $1/month that gets charged, because a processing/admin/overhead fee would get applied against that $1/month, and each year (because of additional compliance costs, infrastructure costs, billing costs etc.) that fee would get just a bit bigger.
Now here's the scary part. Once they've made the $1B investment to break terrorist encryption, do you really think they'll have 420,000 encrypted messages from terrorists sitting around waiting to be cracked?
It's actually scarier than that too - it's not 420,000 messages, it's 420,000 keys, which means that once they get a copy of the messages (can any one say echelon?), it's a trivial exersize to decrypt any intercepted messages using one of the 420,000 keys.
Additionally, the reason you use a large key is to protect your payload from prying eyes (or for trust) for the length of the time that the payload is of value or requires non-repudiation (in most commercial cases, this is seven years, for military or intelligence cases, I'd bet it is more like 30 - 50 years) -which is not necessarily the length of time that it is being transported from one location to the other.
Often it is easier to obtain the private key without resorting to a brute force or cracking mechanism.
But if the cost of brute forcing a key does come down to a couple of thousand dollars and a five minute turn-around time (computing-wise), then the brute-force method becomes the easiest method for gaining they key in question.
It *is* a measly sum - as the email says - how many government agencies have this sort of funding? More than just a couple of US agencies that's for sure.
Assuming the email is correct (and having read it, it does't seem to be that incredible) That $1B investment gets you the infrastructure, systems and processes to routinely break 1024 bit keys (and therefore the contents of the encrypted payload) in a fairly short order.
Since many people believe that a 1024-bit key is essentially uncrackable today, tomorrow and next century, 1024-bit keys are still going to be popular.
If an organisation can amortise the cost over 3-4 years (which is the likely life of short (1024 or smaller) keys). That gives you quite a return on investment.
If that $1B allows you to break one key every 5 minutes, over a 4 year period, you can break ~420,000 keys - which works out to a cost of less than $2500 per key. If you can intelligently target who's keys you wish to compromise, the benefits could be significant.
The people of South Carolina are not paying Sen. Hollings; Michael Eisner is paying Sen. Hollings, and don't you forget it!
I'm not an american, so I don't pretend to understand how the american voting system works (the principle seems to be loosely based on whoever gets the most votes wins, but the implementation seems to be somewhat different) but I understood that someone had to vote Sen. Hollings into office.
So, who was/were the goobers that voted him in?;-)
So much for the simulations of nuclear detonations.
Speaking from a completly ignorant position, surely it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to extend the simulation to determine the effects of the detonation on bunkers, subterranean caves etc?
If some of that stuff crosses state lines, e.g. downloading from hosts not based in the state that the alleged crime was committed, under US law, doesn't that become somewhat more serious?
I could be wrong, but if multiple people are involved, could conspiracy charge(s) also be brought against the alleged perps?
Wasn't that patent granted for a specific implementation of a DRM enabled OS rather than a generic DRM within an OS?
I mean, ACL's would qualify quite well as prior art, and it's no great leap to imagine that the OS vendor/developer could implement an updated FS & kernel to incorporate ACL's that are not easily modifyable by root (i.e. a super dooper user account).
And before anyone goes off and starts saying root has unrestricted access, thats true today (and for the last 32 years or so), but could change - and if the right incentives are there, they will.
Spying on a foreign registry vessel in international waters which had been directed not to enter Australian territory, but which then did enter in some sort of Norwegian Invasion. If comm intercept ability does not exist for occasions such as this, then why does it exist at all?
Except that it was the Australians that directed the Norwegian captain to pick up the refugees in the first place! At that point, the captain had no choice but to comply, or he would never have been able to captain a ship again.
I for one would be pretty pissed if I'd been asked to do this and then left high & dry.
Geesh! If you had to do anything more than hit delete to get rid of an unwanted email, I could see getting angry about it. Why don't you just use filters like I do?
Perhaps because for many users, SPAM costs real money to receive, whether you wanted it or not, not to mention the time taken trolling through your inbox sorting SPAM from useful stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow - ask a question, get "reclassified" as more of a security risk. Sounds a bit McCarthyist . . .
Uptime != unpatched.
There are very few patches requiring a reboot.
But I would like to see parallel boot processing become mainstream rather than having to be hand-tuned for each box or config.
This has advantages for systems requiring a reasonably high level of availability (providing a faster restart time after planned or unplanned outages), and for those users who use linux as their daily desktop or laptop.
You can also purchase an IBM UK keyboard from IBM. Browse to http://www.pc.ibm.com/uk/accessories/ and find the part number for the accessory you are after (31P7450 is the part number for a black 104 key keyboard), and order it from 1-888-SHOP-IBM (their US based online shop does not stock UK parts). The approx retail price for the keyboard is about #28.00 (~US$45) or so.
From the domain registrars whois db:
"The data contained in Go Daddy Software, Inc.'s WHOIS database,while believed by the company to be reliable, is provided "as is"with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy. Thisinformation is provided for the sole purpose of assisting youin obtaining information about domain name registration records.Any use of this data for any other purpose is expressly forbidden without the prior writtenpermission of Go Daddy Software, Inc. By submitting an inquiry,you agree to these terms of usage and limitations of warranty. In particular,you agree not to use this data to allow, enable, or otherwise make possible,dissemination or collection of this data, in part or in its entirety, for anypurpose, such as the transmission of unsolicited advertising andand solicitations of any kind, including spam. You further agreenot to use this data to enable high volume, automated or robotic electronicprocesses designed to collect or compile this data for any purpose,including mining this data for your own personal or commercial purposes. Please note: the owner of the domain name is specifiedin the "registrant" field. In most cases, Go Daddy Software, Inc. is not the owner of domain names listed in this database.Registrant: Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States Registered through: Go Daddy Software (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: BETA-7.COM Created on: 18-Jun-03 Expires on: 18-Jun-04 Last Updated on: 19-Jun-03 Administrative Contact: Private, Registration BETA-7.COM@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Technical Contact: Private, Registration BETA-7.COM@domainsbyproxy.com Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States (480) 624-2599 Domain servers in listed order: NS.RACKSPACE.COM NS2.RACKSPACE.COM"
It's only been registered for about 3 weeks.
I don't think Microsoft have ever believed that DOS was cutting edge.
Microsoft used Xenix (Microsoft UNIX) internally for developing DOS and many applications that ran in a DOS environment.
Wow - faster than light travel. Where can I get some of that?
Microsoft could also argue that you may not use the product for anything other than for NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop, since using any devices attached directly or indirectly would cause code to be executed, which is expressly prohibited in this clause. This would make the PC fairly useless.
Sounds like Microsoft got a cut-price lawyer to create their licensing agreement.
You mean like in the movie Antitrust - where the corporate day-care facility has lego-style workstations for the kids?
Given that is's a licensed product, probably never.
Anti-terror laws 'will curb research'
By Mark Henderson, Science Correspondent
NEW laws designed to keep sensitive scientific information out of the hands of terrorists will entangle universities in red tape and force researchers abroad, leading scientists and academics said yesterday.fnord
The Export Control Bill, which returns to the House of Commons today, would jeopardise academic freedom and international collaborations involving British scientists by forcing thousands of them to be vetted before publishing research.fnord
The proposed legislation is designed to curb the spread of data that could help terrorists or hostile states to develop weapons of mass destruction, by requiring export licences for any studies that might help them At present, while exports of physical goods require a licence if they have a potential military application, there are no such restrictions on ideas or information.fnord
While the Bill's goal is widely accepted, scientists are alarmed that it has been drafted so broadly. Researchers in fields such as computer science, medicine, aerodynamics and even mathematics, as well as in the more obvious areas of nuclear physics and microbiology, could find their work subjected to a costly and time-consuming licensing process.fnord
Many routine academic communications with foreign colleagues would also need permission, making it harder for British researchers to join international teams. Universities have been given legal advice that they would have to submit foreign students for vetting before agreeing to teach or employ them. The overall result will be extra bureaucracy that could cost laboratories hundreds of thousands of pounds, delay research and even persuade some scientists to move abroad.fnord
An amendment introduced in the House of Lords, which would enshrine the concept of academic freedom except where specifically defined by Parliament, is expected to be overturned by the Government in the Commons.fnord
Peter Cotgreave, director of the Save British Science Society, said that the Bill was well intentioned but excessive. "Of course we do not want information that could help terrorists getting out, but the way this legislation is framed means it could embrace almost anything," he said.fnord
"If I took ten random studies from this week's issue of Nature, it wouldn't take more than an hour to think of a way in which any could be used for something dangerous. We need a much clearer definition of what is excluded, in the primary legislation."fnord
A microbiologist sequencing the genome of pathogens such as E.coli O157, for example, would almost certainly need a licence, but so, too, could computer scientists or mathematicians whose work could be applied to cryptography. "Even an ecologist's work could be used by a terrorist looking to find a way to attack crops," Dr Cotgreave said.fnord
At present, the Bill allows the Trade and Industry Secretary broad discretion on what does and does not require a licence, with specific areas to be named in secondary legislation that can be changed without parliamentary approval.fnord
A spokesman for Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors and principals, said: "We have no concern about the present Government's intentions, but to put sweeping powers like this in place is dangerous. The definition is very wide and almost all areas of science and technology could fall within it. Primary legislation set by Parliament is the most appropriate place for determining what the law applies to."fnord
The Association of University Teachers, the Royal Society, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are also concerned about the Bill's implications. Robert Key, the Shadow Science Minister, said: "This is going to be a bureaucratic nightmare for scientists."fnord
Researchers would feel that they had to submit anything for vetting that might possibly have a nefarious use. The fear was that the legislation would threaten British scientific research, making it more likely that scientists would be tempted abroad. A spokeswoman for the Department of Trade and Industry said that it had already amended the original draft to protect scientists' right to publish information already in the public domain, and that it was not intended to limit researchers or add to their bureaucratic workload.fnord
"We do not want to curb academic freedom, but we can't accept loopholes that could contribute to weapons of mass destruction," she said. "If an academic, industry, charity or anyone else is concerned that what they are doing might require an export licence, the DTI has an advice line that people can telephone to check whether or not what they propose to do requires a licence.fnord
"A telephone call need not be time-consuming or bureaucratic."fnord
Can someone explain to me how the Kazaa/Verizon deal would not eventually end up being RIAA with a different name? I'd wager that that the artist does not see the $1/month that gets charged, because a processing/admin/overhead fee would get applied against that $1/month, and each year (because of additional compliance costs, infrastructure costs, billing costs etc.) that fee would get just a bit bigger.
Sounds like a take-over bid to me.
Can't we just set British Telecom on to them? After all they own US patents on hyperlinking etc. Surely that would trump their patents?
It's actually scarier than that too - it's not 420,000 messages, it's 420,000 keys, which means that once they get a copy of the messages (can any one say echelon?), it's a trivial exersize to decrypt any intercepted messages using one of the 420,000 keys.
Additionally, the reason you use a large key is to protect your payload from prying eyes (or for trust) for the length of the time that the payload is of value or requires non-repudiation (in most commercial cases, this is seven years, for military or intelligence cases, I'd bet it is more like 30 - 50 years) -which is not necessarily the length of time that it is being transported from one location to the other.
Often it is easier to obtain the private key without resorting to a brute force or cracking mechanism.
But if the cost of brute forcing a key does come down to a couple of thousand dollars and a five minute turn-around time (computing-wise), then the brute-force method becomes the easiest method for gaining they key in question.
Hmm, economic warfare, industrial espionage, forgery, electronic wiretapping, electronic property theft.
Just to name a few very real benefits to an organisation, agency or government.
Some of these translate directly into dollars, some of them translate into indirect benefits, such as improved competitiveness.
It *is* a measly sum - as the email says - how many government agencies have this sort of funding? More than just a couple of US agencies that's for sure.
Assuming the email is correct (and having read it, it does't seem to be that incredible) That $1B investment gets you the infrastructure, systems and processes to routinely break 1024 bit keys (and therefore the contents of the encrypted payload) in a fairly short order.
Since many people believe that a 1024-bit key is essentially uncrackable today, tomorrow and next century, 1024-bit keys are still going to be popular.
If an organisation can amortise the cost over 3-4 years (which is the likely life of short (1024 or smaller) keys). That gives you quite a return on investment.
If that $1B allows you to break one key every 5 minutes, over a 4 year period, you can break ~420,000 keys - which works out to a cost of less than $2500 per key. If you can intelligently target who's keys you wish to compromise, the benefits could be significant.
I'm not an american, so I don't pretend to understand how the american voting system works (the principle seems to be loosely based on whoever gets the most votes wins, but the implementation seems to be somewhat different) but I understood that someone had to vote Sen. Hollings into office.
So, who was/were the goobers that voted him in?
So much for the simulations of nuclear detonations.
Speaking from a completly ignorant position, surely it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to extend the simulation to determine the effects of the detonation on bunkers, subterranean caves etc?
average warhead can be dropped from space onto the parking lot in front of my house and not detonate
That might be true, but then the kinetic energy released (I haven't done the math> at that point probably would make the payload redundant.
Are there bunkers in existence that are not vulnerable to the conventional bunker busters?
Cheyenne Mountain?
If some of that stuff crosses state lines, e.g. downloading from hosts not based in the state that the alleged crime was committed, under US law, doesn't that become somewhat more serious?
I could be wrong, but if multiple people are involved, could conspiracy charge(s) also be brought against the alleged perps?
Wasn't that patent granted for a specific implementation of a DRM enabled OS rather than a generic DRM within an OS?
I mean, ACL's would qualify quite well as prior art, and it's no great leap to imagine that the OS vendor/developer could implement an updated FS & kernel to incorporate ACL's that are not easily modifyable by root (i.e. a super dooper user account).
And before anyone goes off and starts saying root has unrestricted access, thats true today (and for the last 32 years or so), but could change - and if the right incentives are there, they will.
Except that it was the Australians that directed the Norwegian captain to pick up the refugees in the first place! At that point, the captain had no choice but to comply, or he would never have been able to captain a ship again.
I for one would be pretty pissed if I'd been asked to do this and then left high & dry.
Perhaps because for many users, SPAM costs real money to receive, whether you wanted it or not, not to mention the time taken trolling through your inbox sorting SPAM from useful stuff.