They're people. People with their own motivations. Not some sort of hivemind. You've just guessed at two of them -- and probably good guesses that may match at least two of the writers either in part or in whole.
Here's another one: some virus writer may not want to do time for releasing one of his creations. So he gives the hard part (the infection vector) away so someone who's got more chutzpa or less common sense can weld a payload onto it.
Unless you look for patterns like that intentionally...
What, exactly, is your job again, sir? You mean to tell me that you would not know if a user-account suddenly joined the 99th percentile of heaviest users? Right up there with the usage by the test automatons? You wouldn't question this account's use in the slightest -- even given the wide gap between that account's usage and the accounts below it?
Well, by increasing the shelf-life (pot-life?) of the fruit, you're decreasing the vendor's motivation to sell quickly, allowing him the opportunity to hold out for a higher price.
Given that this is available to the consumer as well, and the rest of your arguments are certainly valid I don't think this would have much net affect on the price of produce though...
...dude. I can't tell if thats a good idea or not.. So much of the Amber books is Corwin thinking to himself and scheeming, not sure how that would play on the bigscreen... And the plot is pretty convoluted..
And besides, how many people would sit through five years of Corwin locked in the dungeon, anyways?
Well! I'll be buggered with a baseball bat. My apologies, sir, and my thanks as well: you just found a bug in my slashdot plugin for firebird -- posts below the initial threshhold aren't getting proper parent relationships when the threshhold is changed.
Sir, your accusation (as opposed to a friendly request for information) makes you look like the troll in this case -- especially given that this is quite trivial.
But if you check ftp.kernel.org -- or any mirror you happen to trust -- you will find.sign files corresponding to each tarball. If you want to pull a tarball from a potentially untrusted source one needs to simply get that.sign file, and then run
Funny. I read it exactly the other way around. The way it looks to me is Novell is saying, "Don't worry about it. If you got your Linux from us, we got you covered like a jimmy-hat."
I'd like it more if Novell said, "NOT ON MY WATCH!" but I'll take this.
Why? Why not? It is an interesting topic, and thinking about how the system can be used against itself is a fun mental game. As far as "dangerous knowledge" goes, this is pretty innocent, considering I've taught people to make holes in things with hot lead projectiles, and been taught how to break bones in a variety of ways. A quick search of the internet, a left wing book catalog, or your local library will turn up a lot more than I've said here.
Obviously I'd prefer that no one apply this knowledge, but who knows? Maybe some day someone's going to be on the run from the law for a cause I believe in, or from an abusive spouse, or, or, or, or.. The availability of this sort of information might help them run a bit further and hide a bit longer.
I know that Florida, at least, extends limited deputy police powers to state-certified loss-prevention agents. They can and will detain you. By force if needed. Other states require bonds, more intensive training classes, and may refer to it by a different name, but you can bet that if you are detained by a security guard, he's allowed to do so.
Now the big stores are terrified of the liability risks so they are very careful about using these powers. They will "ask" you to step into the back (probably in an asshole-coplike-voice), and "ask" to look in your bag. If you say you're not going into the back then said guard has got to make a judgement call -- does he have a sufficient chain of evidence to protect himself and his boss in the event of a lawsuit?
In most cases that would run like this: seeing you take and/or conceal the item -- ideally on camera. Then following them with cameras and/or floor agents to confirm you didn't have a reasonable chance of dropping the item -- if there's a visible bulge from the item, so much the better. Next, they want to see you bypass a point of sale and attempt to exit the store to prevent the "I just tucked it in my pocket so I could flip through that magazine with both hands" defense. If they've got all that, their asses are covered in detaining you.
As a side note, even if they've got all of that on you, they may or may not decide to chase you if you pull a runner. These guys are there to keep the company from losing money, not to keep people from shoplifting. If you're snatching a cheap item, you're probably not worth the risk of a chase. The company would much rather write off a pack of gum than have to pay for hip surgery on the little old lady their guard slammed into while trying to catch you. If you run, run through the parking lot, not along the sidewalk -- the company doesn't want higher insurance premiums 'cause their guards keep getting hit by cars, and will instruct the guards not to chase through the parking lot. If you run, get off their property ASAP -- they almost certainly do not have hot-pursuit powers...
Finally, if you absolutely must not get caught (like you've got an outstanding warrant or are on probation or whatever) claim to be armed. There's no way a security guard's going to subject himself or the customers to gunfire. Depending on where you are that might be enough for an assault with a deadly weapon charge though, so it's probably not too wise.
Were the machine to print out a paper ballot with my choices on it, I could confirm the machine had registered my votes correctly before I placed the ballot in the ballot box. If the machine had erroneously printed a blank ballot I could have the ballot invalidated and been given a chance to have my vote properly tallied.
If I specifically wished to cast a blank ballot (as a protest, perhaps) I could be assured that it would be tallied as blank and not attributed to a machine error or other mistake.
Banks and hospitals give them to you, don't know where the police file theirs as we didn't go that route. My son's prints (both hand and foot) are in the fireproof safe and in our safety deposit box.
Remember that this is a hack on CPU resources, not on any other means like human time.
...well, a hack on memory access times, not the CPU, but I will grant that both exist as a finite resource...
If this is the way MS wants to create secure computing in the following decade, they are seriously going to loose out.
This isn't how MS wants to create secure computing. Pfft. This is just something some of their researches drew on the board and said, "y'know? this could work..."
It's a hack, and a bad one at that. NO-ONE of the other mail clients is going to comply.
Actually, its quite a good hack: by its nature it should take about the same time on a P90 as on a more modern machine. It doesn't have the accessibility concerns of some of the other first contact challenges -- like the 'visit this web page and type the letters you see on the picture'. It doesn't have the privacy concerns with the 'put a nickel in my paypal' mechanism. I'd accept pretty much anyone of these as being "probably not spam" and thus direct it to my Inbox and not my Spambox.:)
Slashdot Mirror
What, exactly, was the point of that, sir?
Man, we're in a world of shit if someone shouts out "Olly-Olly outs in free!"
Help me with this one, mikeg22 -- how did a lame joke like mine get an insightful moderation?
Will this come in time to protect us from the terrible secret of space?
Here's another one: some virus writer may not want to do time for releasing one of his creations. So he gives the hard part (the infection vector) away so someone who's got more chutzpa or less common sense can weld a payload onto it.
Sorry, dude. Back to the 18 1/2 minute gap for you.
What, exactly, is your job again, sir? You mean to tell me that you would not know if a user-account suddenly joined the 99th percentile of heaviest users? Right up there with the usage by the test automatons? You wouldn't question this account's use in the slightest -- even given the wide gap between that account's usage and the accounts below it?
DO YOU SEE A BLOOD RED SWORD?
Given that this is available to the consumer as well, and the rest of your arguments are certainly valid I don't think this would have much net affect on the price of produce though...
And besides, how many people would sit through five years of Corwin locked in the dungeon, anyways?
I need to switch banks! ;)
Full details can be found here.
Well! I'll be buggered with a baseball bat. My apologies, sir, and my thanks as well: you just found a bug in my slashdot plugin for firebird -- posts below the initial threshhold aren't getting proper parent relationships when the threshhold is changed.
But if you check ftp.kernel.org -- or any mirror you happen to trust -- you will find .sign files corresponding to each tarball. If you want to pull a tarball from a potentially untrusted source one needs to simply get that .sign file, and then run
gpg --verify [signature] [tarball]
Just say NO! to the information crackpipe!
Funny. I read it exactly the other way around. The way it looks to me is Novell is saying, "Don't worry about it. If you got your Linux from us, we got you covered like a jimmy-hat."
I'd like it more if Novell said, "NOT ON MY WATCH!" but I'll take this.
Hey, I guess I'm the only one who remembered these guys when this story rolled around, but there's an order of monks who will illuminate web pages!
Obviously I'd prefer that no one apply this knowledge, but who knows? Maybe some day someone's going to be on the run from the law for a cause I believe in, or from an abusive spouse, or, or, or, or.. The availability of this sort of information might help them run a bit further and hide a bit longer.
I'm no lawyer. Ingest with salt as needed.
I know that Florida, at least, extends limited deputy police powers to state-certified loss-prevention agents. They can and will detain you. By force if needed. Other states require bonds, more intensive training classes, and may refer to it by a different name, but you can bet that if you are detained by a security guard, he's allowed to do so.
Now the big stores are terrified of the liability risks so they are very careful about using these powers. They will "ask" you to step into the back (probably in an asshole-coplike-voice), and "ask" to look in your bag. If you say you're not going into the back then said guard has got to make a judgement call -- does he have a sufficient chain of evidence to protect himself and his boss in the event of a lawsuit?
In most cases that would run like this: seeing you take and/or conceal the item -- ideally on camera. Then following them with cameras and/or floor agents to confirm you didn't have a reasonable chance of dropping the item -- if there's a visible bulge from the item, so much the better. Next, they want to see you bypass a point of sale and attempt to exit the store to prevent the "I just tucked it in my pocket so I could flip through that magazine with both hands" defense. If they've got all that, their asses are covered in detaining you.
As a side note, even if they've got all of that on you, they may or may not decide to chase you if you pull a runner. These guys are there to keep the company from losing money, not to keep people from shoplifting. If you're snatching a cheap item, you're probably not worth the risk of a chase. The company would much rather write off a pack of gum than have to pay for hip surgery on the little old lady their guard slammed into while trying to catch you. If you run, run through the parking lot, not along the sidewalk -- the company doesn't want higher insurance premiums 'cause their guards keep getting hit by cars, and will instruct the guards not to chase through the parking lot. If you run, get off their property ASAP -- they almost certainly do not have hot-pursuit powers...
Finally, if you absolutely must not get caught (like you've got an outstanding warrant or are on probation or whatever) claim to be armed. There's no way a security guard's going to subject himself or the customers to gunfire. Depending on where you are that might be enough for an assault with a deadly weapon charge though, so it's probably not too wise.
Were the machine to print out a paper ballot with my choices on it, I could confirm the machine had registered my votes correctly before I placed the ballot in the ballot box. If the machine had erroneously printed a blank ballot I could have the ballot invalidated and been given a chance to have my vote properly tallied.
If I specifically wished to cast a blank ballot (as a protest, perhaps) I could be assured that it would be tallied as blank and not attributed to a machine error or other mistake.
Banks and hospitals give them to you, don't know where the police file theirs as we didn't go that route. My son's prints (both hand and foot) are in the fireproof safe and in our safety deposit box.
Banks, hospitals, and police stations all provide this service.
Nonono, it's "two plus two equals five, for large values of two and small values of five."
Let's do both!
Remember that this is a hack on CPU resources, not on any other means like human time.
...well, a hack on memory access times, not the CPU, but I will grant that both exist as a finite resource...
If this is the way MS wants to create secure computing in the following decade, they are seriously going to loose out.
This isn't how MS wants to create secure computing. Pfft. This is just something some of their researches drew on the board and said, "y'know? this could work..."
It's a hack, and a bad one at that. NO-ONE of the other mail clients is going to comply.
Actually, its quite a good hack: by its nature it should take about the same time on a P90 as on a more modern machine. It doesn't have the accessibility concerns of some of the other first contact challenges -- like the 'visit this web page and type the letters you see on the picture'. It doesn't have the privacy concerns with the 'put a nickel in my paypal' mechanism. I'd accept pretty much anyone of these as being "probably not spam" and thus direct it to my Inbox and not my Spambox. :)