In fact it is only port 80 traffic which needs a code to work, my friend found this out when one day he decided to RDP into one of his servers, he got in then realized he had never authenticated the session that day!
Good to know. Just set up your own proxy somewhere on the internet, and use that one to surf! And be careful not to spill your coffee over your laptop! (... and not to use your laptop on your... uhmm... lap)
it gives you a new DHCP lease which is good for 15 minutes.
That can't be correct. What's to stop anyone from manually configuring the appropriate IP address into his laptop?
Re:Please help me with the GPL
on
FCC Goes WiFi
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
What is this? Astroturfing by software "freedom of choice" lobby? (Cheap astroturf full of holes)
No, just the usual crop of garden dwarves. The Thank you for your time is a dead give-away. Oh, and although the dwarf noticed that there is no
token ring support in Linux, he forgot to mention that there is no support for mice either.
And even though he noticed that you can't defragment an ext2 fs he forgot to mention there are no virus scanners for Linux either. And no way to change the color of the bluescreen. And no dialog box to enter the license key.
Or is it those funky trolls again tickling my brain?;)
Great, but can I treat it like a hammer, and still have it work? You know, grab it, punch out a few calculations, and toss it aside without much care where it lands.
Can you treat a hammer like a hammer, and still have everything work? You know, grab it, drive in a couple of nails, and toss it aside without much care where it lands...
Isn't it against the DMCA to leave the room and take a wee during the commercials? Hey, you're STEALING from the TV corporations. Quick, sick the MPAA hounds on him!
Well, these (aftermarket) antennas are illegal, not because they have a LED, but because they have different RF characteristics than the antenna that originally came with the phone (...and with which the phone was certified to be compliant). If there were phones that came with a "twinkling" antenna out of the box, these would be legal.
The visible spectrum is not yet regulated, thanks God!
Well, you can look at it this way: Senator Coleman used his reasonable judgement and figured out that using Napster was ok. But of course, for the court a "reasonable person" is a person with enough money in the bank to hire the most expensive lawyers, so Napster lost despite Coleman's reasonable judgment in its favor.
Erhmm, wasn't this just an attempt at a lame pun (bureaucracy / eurocrats). Anyways, a quite inappropriate pun, as the issue at hand seems to be purely British rather than European.
shouldn't he have sensed that guilt that should have come from his being a former roadie, and his current position as (supposedly moral) senator?
No. Napster was innocent until proven guilty by a court of justice. Coleman did the right thing.
Or else, all $BigCorp had to do was spread some fud about questionable legality of its competitor, and everybody would just oblige and roll over? First let's the courts decide, and only then be part of the punishment.
In Germany, people sue travel agents if they think their holiday was less enjoyable than it could be (bad hotel, dirty beach, or sometimes even a late tour bus!), and what's scary: they often win...
And, wasn't their even a case in the US, where the operators of a game show cheated by giving the more handsome candidate advance knowledge of the questions and answers. There was even a movie made of the incident.
And yes, if a movie is really bad, some people do try to demand their money back
So there does indeed seem to be some sue-able value to entertainment.
This is not a problem with Windows/ASP/ASPX/or MSSQL. It's a problem of poor programming and can be done with any language and DB.
Yes, but think about it a bit. On which platform do you find the most inexperienced programmers? Guess what, on the platform that advertises itself as to be so easy that any
baboon can use it...
Moreover, other languages and database engines have safeguards to make these things less easy to happen:
in its default config PHP escapes the dangerous quote signs with a backslash. Which breaks SQL injection vulnerabilities in most cases.
Professional databases, such as Oracle, provide "bind variables". These allow you to write ("prepare") SQL statement in which you can leave values undefined (SELECT user_id FROM users WHERE login = %1 AND password = %2). It's only when you use the statement, that you supply the values. No need to piece together SQL statements using awkward string concatenation. And if there is no string concatenation, there is no SQL injection. Moreover, it's more efficient: the database engine has to analyze the statement only once, rather than do it for each data.
Just like with many other cases of insider trading, it was probably not the CIA as an organization who did it, but rather some individual agents who thought that they could "discreetly" make some cash on the side...
Would indeed have worked, if there hadn't been so many of them who had the same idea....
They weren't counting on the WTC going down, and trading being halted. If trading hadn't been halted, they would have gotten away with the money.
Ok, I see your point. Maybe they were counting on the WTC going down, but Wall Street still keep going with "business as usual"
N.B. Just in case anybody doesn't know: the stock exchange was not located in/near the WTC, but in another building several blocks away. The reason that the stock exchange was closed was not that it was physically incapable of operating, but rather that operators thought that the tragedy would create too much of a turmoil in the markets, and so they closed until the "dust had settled"
To me, that suggests that the "investors" knew there was going to be an attack, knew that multiple airplanes would be involved from UAL and AMR, but did NOT know that the WTC was the target, or would be destroyed in the attack.
Why do you think that? Because the WTC went down, the (re)insurance companies incurred financial losses, which made it interesting for the "investors" to short them...
Even though in the long run, catastrophes are good business for the insurance co's, this is certainly NOT true in the short run, and our "investor" were aiming for a short term gain.
In fact, its no more nefarious then buying an insurance policy against the World Trade Center collapsing (there was one).
Yes, there was an insurance policy (with Swiss-Re and AXA, if I remember correctly).
Does the purchase of that policy PROVE pre-existanct knowledge of the 9/11 attacks? Not by a long shot.
It does, if you consider that Swiss Re and Axa were also targets of the same "investors"... who specifically picked UAL an AA among all the airlines, and who specifically picked Swiss Re and AXA among all the (re)insurance companies.
But maybe the investors weren't on Bin Laden's team, but rather on the
CIA's
Isn't this
what happened just before September 11? Lot of investor bought put options for airline stocks for unknown reasons (unknown until Sep 11, that is...), causing the stocks to dip noticeable. Strangely enough the affected airlines where AMR (American Airlines) and UAL (United), those two whose planes were used in the attacks.
Even more interesting, due to closure of the New York stock exchanges, the "investors" couldn't trade in their loot right away. And by the time it re-opened, papers and the SEC were already makeing the connection between the attacks and the strange trading patterns. Thus, many of those "investors" didn't turn up to collect their loot, even though their options were in the money!
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and the page has a nice SQL injection! Anybody has time to work on this injection to do something, uhmm, phun, to their database?
Yeah, good thing you didn't donate anything, or you might be in jail too. Indeed, a large donation to a charitable organization was what triggered this whole mess.
Good to know. Just set up your own proxy somewhere on the internet, and use that one to surf! And be careful not to spill your coffee over your laptop! (... and not to use your laptop on your ... uhmm... lap)
That can't be correct. What's to stop anyone from manually configuring the appropriate IP address into his laptop?
No, just the usual crop of garden dwarves. The Thank you for your time is a dead give-away. Oh, and although the dwarf noticed that there is no token ring support in Linux, he forgot to mention that there is no support for mice either.
And even though he noticed that you can't defragment an ext2 fs he forgot to mention there are no virus scanners for Linux either. And no way to change the color of the bluescreen. And no dialog box to enter the license key.
Or is it those funky trolls again tickling my brain? ;)
Yes, indeed...
Can you treat a hammer like a hammer, and still have everything work? You know, grab it, drive in a couple of nails, and toss it aside without much care where it lands...
Isn't it against the DMCA to leave the room and take a wee during the commercials? Hey, you're STEALING from the TV corporations. Quick, sick the MPAA hounds on him!
The visible spectrum is not yet regulated, thanks God!
Well, you can look at it this way: Senator Coleman used his reasonable judgement and figured out that using Napster was ok. But of course, for the court a "reasonable person" is a person with enough money in the bank to hire the most expensive lawyers, so Napster lost despite Coleman's reasonable judgment in its favor.
Erhmm, wasn't this just an attempt at a lame pun (bureaucracy / eurocrats). Anyways, a quite inappropriate pun, as the issue at hand seems to be purely British rather than European.
We know that. But it's a little bit harmed to continue using a service after armed officers have confiscated its equipment ;)
No. Napster was innocent until proven guilty by a court of justice. Coleman did the right thing.
Or else, all $BigCorp had to do was spread some fud about questionable legality of its competitor, and everybody would just oblige and roll over? First let's the courts decide, and only then be part of the punishment.
And, wasn't their even a case in the US, where the operators of a game show cheated by giving the more handsome candidate advance knowledge of the questions and answers. There was even a movie made of the incident.
And yes, if a movie is really bad, some people do try to demand their money back
So there does indeed seem to be some sue-able value to entertainment.
Oh no, those poor kitties!
Yes, but think about it a bit. On which platform do you find the most inexperienced programmers? Guess what, on the platform that advertises itself as to be so easy that any baboon can use it...
Moreover, other languages and database engines have safeguards to make these things less easy to happen:
No, no, I won't fall for that! I still remember what happened to Dmitry Sklyarov what he "came to check it out"...
No, but you bullshit the world, and pretend you're all one big free democratic nation.
Would indeed have worked, if there hadn't been so many of them who had the same idea....
Ok, I see your point. Maybe they were counting on the WTC going down, but Wall Street still keep going with "business as usual"
N.B. Just in case anybody doesn't know: the stock exchange was not located in/near the WTC, but in another building several blocks away. The reason that the stock exchange was closed was not that it was physically incapable of operating, but rather that operators thought that the tragedy would create too much of a turmoil in the markets, and so they closed until the "dust had settled"
Why do you think that? Because the WTC went down, the (re)insurance companies incurred financial losses, which made it interesting for the "investors" to short them...
Even though in the long run, catastrophes are good business for the insurance co's, this is certainly NOT true in the short run, and our "investor" were aiming for a short term gain.
Yes, there was an insurance policy (with Swiss-Re and AXA, if I remember correctly).
Does the purchase of that policy PROVE pre-existanct knowledge of the 9/11 attacks? Not by a long shot.
It does, if you consider that Swiss Re and Axa were also targets of the same "investors"... who specifically picked UAL an AA among all the airlines, and who specifically picked Swiss Re and AXA among all the (re)insurance companies.
But maybe the investors weren't on Bin Laden's team, but rather on the CIA's
Do you have to wear underwear under your kilt?
Eeww! It's a .doc file! You disgusting pick, this is even worse than the goatse guy!
Even more interesting, due to closure of the New York stock exchanges, the "investors" couldn't trade in their loot right away. And by the time it re-opened, papers and the SEC were already makeing the connection between the attacks and the strange trading patterns. Thus, many of those "investors" didn't turn up to collect their loot, even though their options were in the money!
Hmmm... What's the difference?