Meh, people can so you'll be leaving your big fat paw prints on it if you try. See, that's the cool bit. I can say "on line 2105 of blah.c in package foo version 4.321 I found that some fucker had tried to put in a backdoor.. can you guys check your revision control to see where this came from?" and there's this public audit trail. If I managed to find something in a binary that isn't in the source I can easily find out who made the package and where they got the binaries from. That's what security is.. it's people and accountability.
We'd be talking about it for decades. It might actually wake up some people to the NEA threat to our own planet. It might have a devastating and instant effect on the atmosphere of Mars.. which could actually make the planet a little warmer and a little more hospitable.
If you honestly think that servers don't get hacked then you probably should go talk to a security sysadmin or two.
The trade in zero day exploits is alive and well.. the only difference between today and 10 years ago is that the sale of zero day exploits has become slightly more legitimized. i.e., the "good guys" will now buy an zero day exploit off anyone selling, not just the "bad guys".
But getting back to the topic, you don't need exploits to write a virus. What you need is an infection vector, the user will do the rest. Thankfully, Linux users don't tend to download "warez" or open executable email attachments or even have software that requires you to install a "plugin" before you can view porn. What you said about disabling exec on/home and/tmp is a good way to remove those first two infection vectors. It's even practical - if you have virtualization software installed on the machine. Someone complains they can't run random shit they downloaded or the internet? (or wrote themselves) Tell them to run it in a virtual machine.
Blah, the real solution is to have open software that you can trust because everyone knows you could look inside it so they don't try to sneak something past. If you can't have that, at least run every program in a separate virtual machine and only allow a program access to the documents it requires to have access to instead of giving it full control to do anything on the system, including modifying the kernel, which is what 99% of Windows users do.
In regards to your first defect, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59314 and enjoy the bitter fighting.. it's this kind of crap in a bug that can get it ignored by developers for years. Eventually someone who is bold and who can code will Just Fix It and that'll be that.
In regards to the Downloads.. yes, make it a full download manager, I don't understand why it isn't.
You're actually complaining about 65 meg of ram? I don't know if you've been keeping track, but next year machines will come with 4 gig of ram standard.. That means you could have 63 tabs open at the same time and not even swap (assuming your 65 meg per tab thing was right, which, of course, it isn't). They're not trying to make a browser for a freakin' mobile phone here ok? Wasting time optimizing memory usage is just that, wasting time. Of course, if you really want that, go grab a copy of Opera for cell phones and use that.. or, ya know, do the memory optimization on Firefox yourself, but I'm over here not caring about the memory usage because I have a modern computer.
I don't think any of us give a shit about the specifics.. let the developers sort that out, but anything that causes the browser to lock up such that you can't switch tabs needs to be fixed.
If you're drunk I sure hope you're coding. That's the only way to go. Check in some 1000+ line changes and then come in tomorrow and have people ask you why you did what you did and have no idea. Awesome.
Agreed. If you're writing a new website you will not put in all the hacks to make it work with IE6 when IE8 finally becomes the expected norm. You'll just tell the IE6 users to upgrade. Meanwhile, the existing IE6 supporting sites will continue to support IE6 users until they get with the program.
* WebCore-based applications
o Safari, the web browser included in Mac OS X
o OmniWeb, a web browser for Mac OS X
o Shiira, a web browser for Mac OS X
* Konqueror, a web browser for Linux
* Prince, an XML-to-PDF converter for Windows and Linux
* iCab, a web browser for Mac OS and Mac OS X
* Presto-based browsers
o Opera, a web browser for Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, and BSD
o Internet Channel, a version of the Opera browser for the Nintendo Wii game console.
* Gecko-based browsers (1.9 or higher)
o Mozilla Firefox 3.0 beta 1
* Internet Explorer 8
So yeah, I doubt you're running Firefox 3.0 beta 1.
The point is the "prearrangement" I believe. So you don't have to go get permission to use the work commercially, you just have to make sure you send the checks.
One day we'll be able to grow a complete body artificially, including the brain, and only by careful testing will you be able to tell the artificial from the natural born.
1. You don't actually speak in terminology so I have no idea if you know what you are talking about or are just ranting. 2. Analogy is not a helpful means of argument. 3. There are people making biological machines right now. There's a competition which they enter every year to showcase their progress. (see http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.php/Main_Page) 4. The creation of completely new proteins and back-transcribing of the protein sequence to a suitable DNA sequence has been demonstrated. Parts will probably start showing up in the BioBricks databases in a few years as desktop computing power gets cheaper and cheaper.
It was announced this year that most of the genes of ecoli are now "understood" to the degree that we can now remove the genes we don't understand and still get a working system. It really is amazing how fast biotech is moving..
J. Craig Venter is still the leading force. Next year he plans to publish a full artificial genome for a "minimalist" microbe. This thing can metabolize a feedstock and reproduce. All the genes are well understood. The structure of the proteins they make have been described. How the proteins interact has been studied. There are system schematics.
This really is like an "operating system" for a cell. The kinds of "applications" you will run on it will likely not be anything like the biological processes. Using standardized parts like Biobricks from MIT, you'll be able to hack together multicellular systems for performing some exotic task. Anything from producing wanted biological products to computation.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the funny thing about mega-events in chaotic systems, you never know what might happen.
Meh, people can so you'll be leaving your big fat paw prints on it if you try. See, that's the cool bit. I can say "on line 2105 of blah.c in package foo version 4.321 I found that some fucker had tried to put in a backdoor.. can you guys check your revision control to see where this came from?" and there's this public audit trail. If I managed to find something in a binary that isn't in the source I can easily find out who made the package and where they got the binaries from. That's what security is.. it's people and accountability.
Did you miss the part where the atmosphere of Earth and Mars are completely freakin' different?
Earth has a much thicker atmosphere.
We'd be talking about it for decades. It might actually wake up some people to the NEA threat to our own planet. It might have a devastating and instant effect on the atmosphere of Mars.. which could actually make the planet a little warmer and a little more hospitable.
If you honestly think that servers don't get hacked then you probably should go talk to a security sysadmin or two.
/home and /tmp is a good way to remove those first two infection vectors. It's even practical - if you have virtualization software installed on the machine. Someone complains they can't run random shit they downloaded or the internet? (or wrote themselves) Tell them to run it in a virtual machine.
The trade in zero day exploits is alive and well.. the only difference between today and 10 years ago is that the sale of zero day exploits has become slightly more legitimized. i.e., the "good guys" will now buy an zero day exploit off anyone selling, not just the "bad guys".
But getting back to the topic, you don't need exploits to write a virus. What you need is an infection vector, the user will do the rest. Thankfully, Linux users don't tend to download "warez" or open executable email attachments or even have software that requires you to install a "plugin" before you can view porn. What you said about disabling exec on
Blah, the real solution is to have open software that you can trust because everyone knows you could look inside it so they don't try to sneak something past. If you can't have that, at least run every program in a separate virtual machine and only allow a program access to the documents it requires to have access to instead of giving it full control to do anything on the system, including modifying the kernel, which is what 99% of Windows users do.
Firefox != Mozilla (or Gecko for that matter).
In regards to your first defect, see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=59314 and enjoy the bitter fighting.. it's this kind of crap in a bug that can get it ignored by developers for years. Eventually someone who is bold and who can code will Just Fix It and that'll be that.
In regards to the Downloads.. yes, make it a full download manager, I don't understand why it isn't.
You're actually complaining about 65 meg of ram? I don't know if you've been keeping track, but next year machines will come with 4 gig of ram standard.. That means you could have 63 tabs open at the same time and not even swap (assuming your 65 meg per tab thing was right, which, of course, it isn't). They're not trying to make a browser for a freakin' mobile phone here ok? Wasting time optimizing memory usage is just that, wasting time. Of course, if you really want that, go grab a copy of Opera for cell phones and use that.. or, ya know, do the memory optimization on Firefox yourself, but I'm over here not caring about the memory usage because I have a modern computer.
I don't think any of us give a shit about the specifics.. let the developers sort that out, but anything that causes the browser to lock up such that you can't switch tabs needs to be fixed.
Heh, way to regress Firefox team.
Beta 1 did, so you'd hope Beta 2 will :)
If you're drunk I sure hope you're coding. That's the only way to go. Check in some 1000+ line changes and then come in tomorrow and have people ask you why you did what you did and have no idea. Awesome.
The the vast majority of our galaxy (let alone the rest of the universe) our planet appears empty.
Wow, seems you can't use a "parent" link.
The guy who I was replying to has been modded into the ground.
Do you not know what "million" means or can you just not read?
4,568,000,000 years ago, within a range of about 2,080,000 years.
That's an error margin of about 0.046%.
Agreed. If you're writing a new website you will not put in all the hacks to make it work with IE6 when IE8 finally becomes the expected norm. You'll just tell the IE6 users to upgrade. Meanwhile, the existing IE6 supporting sites will continue to support IE6 users until they get with the program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2
Compliant applications:
* WebCore-based applications
o Safari, the web browser included in Mac OS X
o OmniWeb, a web browser for Mac OS X
o Shiira, a web browser for Mac OS X
* Konqueror, a web browser for Linux
* Prince, an XML-to-PDF converter for Windows and Linux
* iCab, a web browser for Mac OS and Mac OS X
* Presto-based browsers
o Opera, a web browser for Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, and BSD
o Internet Channel, a version of the Opera browser for the Nintendo Wii game console.
* Gecko-based browsers (1.9 or higher)
o Mozilla Firefox 3.0 beta 1
* Internet Explorer 8
So yeah, I doubt you're running Firefox 3.0 beta 1.
The point is the "prearrangement" I believe. So you don't have to go get permission to use the work commercially, you just have to make sure you send the checks.
One day we'll be able to grow a complete body artificially, including the brain, and only by careful testing will you be able to tell the artificial from the natural born.
1. You don't actually speak in terminology so I have no idea if you know what you are talking about or are just ranting.
2. Analogy is not a helpful means of argument.
3. There are people making biological machines right now. There's a competition which they enter every year to showcase their progress. (see http://parts.mit.edu/igem07/index.php/Main_Page)
4. The creation of completely new proteins and back-transcribing of the protein sequence to a suitable DNA sequence has been demonstrated. Parts will probably start showing up in the BioBricks databases in a few years as desktop computing power gets cheaper and cheaper.
This stuff really is happening.
sounds like "intelligence" :)
It was announced this year that most of the genes of ecoli are now "understood" to the degree that we can now remove the genes we don't understand and still get a working system. It really is amazing how fast biotech is moving..
J. Craig Venter is still the leading force. Next year he plans to publish a full artificial genome for a "minimalist" microbe. This thing can metabolize a feedstock and reproduce. All the genes are well understood. The structure of the proteins they make have been described. How the proteins interact has been studied. There are system schematics.
This really is like an "operating system" for a cell. The kinds of "applications" you will run on it will likely not be anything like the biological processes. Using standardized parts like Biobricks from MIT, you'll be able to hack together multicellular systems for performing some exotic task. Anything from producing wanted biological products to computation.
So you're saying that sterile animals are not alive?
How about sterile amoeba?