To the very best of my knowledge I haven't been infected by any virus or trojan since the early 90s when I didn't have Internet access and fast virus updates.
Try astalavista.box.sk. After some time of surfing, you'll see if there have been open holes on your machine...
Ironic that the most precious thing a nation could have would also be the cheapest.
The most precious thing a nation could have is not its money! Geez....
Sure. The executables are small enough you could probably store them in a directory on each of your slices and each of your partitions in the slices. I like the idea, and I've taken advantage of it before when I couldn't mount / but I could convince the kernel to mount/usr as / in single user.
The problem is sitting in front of the terminal. It's absolutely no technical problem to have a partition somewhere containing all the data you need to get you system back to life if something very integral gets lost.
The problems are:
deciding what is "all" you need,
deciding where to put it so it doesn't get damaged,
documenting the place so the person who needs it to fix a problem finds it,
keeping it sync'ed so it can be used,
but not too much sync'ed, so it doesn't copy your mistakes while administrating the system.
In my opinion, imitating the laisser-faire of the Linux folks doesn't help in doing everyday's administration job.
In my experience, the biggest problem with FreeBSD machines always has been finding some adequate tools to fix it when the system crashes after >2 years uptime- (Or do you have your FreeBSD 2.2 disk handy?)
Given that some executables are more important than others in reparing broken filesystems, this situation particularly exacerbated with crunched binaries, why not add error correcting codes to them, and use inteleaving techniques to mitigate single block errors? Yes, they would grow, but not likely to the limit of multiple complete copies.
Bit failures are very rare when having filesystem problems. ECCs only help with (single or multiple) bit failures. They don't help if the whole block is destroyed (which it is, after the hardware's own error correction system has failed).
Much more often it happens that the meta information of a filesystem got destroyed: You still have all your data, but you have no way to find them anymore.
The most useful way of protecting your data is an identical copy of it. That means: Backup or mirroring or duplicating (as of IBM lingo).
Bruce Perens is a well-known representative of Open Source who is known by nobody but himself?
"Mr. Taylor" is a man with no first name that nobody, including Mr. Perens seems to know? And nobody knows a name of a gathering where this man has been seen?
There is nothing like a European Union government. There is a parliament. There are commissions. But the institutions Mr. Perens cares to cite don't exist?
Would you agree?
In this case, might it be possible that Mr. Perens is a creation of himself, and all his news together with him are nothing than hot air?
Looks like even researchers can be idiots. No patent == no increased funding == less resources for further research == less efficient research == more dead people.
That's like with Open Source Software: No commercial owner == no or low funding == less motivation of the developers == frustration and distress == more terrorism.
So, if you make software proprietary, you do something against terrorism!
But everyone who needs binary packages and a complete set of defined packages that definitely works - like people who have >100 servers - would be happier with some other distribution.
system that glorifies a sociopathic, genocidal tyrant that's all too willing to use orbital bombardment on two bronze age cities, saving only the family that was willing to grovel to him sufficiently
I am sorry, you are talking about the Bush family?
9/11 happened because the airline industry was taught since the 1970's to not fight back against terrorists
You can easily destroy an airplane during flight, or slowly eliminate the passengers while at the airport. This is impressive and you don't need access to the cockpit. (I have personal experiences with security measures at airports and don't trust them very much...)
nuclear missles are not incredibly cheap. Especially if you factor in the secrecy requirement to purchase or create
From what I hear, some people have the weapons but no money (zero, zero, zero, absolutely nothing); others have the money and want the weapons.
It's very hard to explain away an undetonated nuclear weapon in an opponent's city
Yes, this is the traditional view. One country attacks another country. But there seem to be different kind of influences now...
There are more and more angry young people looking for an organization that suites their desires. They believe that U.S. is responsible for all their misery, and if not the U.S. itself, then it's Israel, which is nearly the same.
Can you imagine having neither home nor home country, no chance to get a job, no chance to earn the living of your family, nowhere to go, nowhere being allowed to live...? They have nothing to lose.
Because you financed Sadam in the 1980s, you are not allowed to call him evil.
No, really. Let me ask a different question: What makes him so evil now? His carreer was never the one of a peaceful, democratic people's leader.
He killed so many children in the war with Iran. He killed so many people living in Kurdistan. But nobody cared, at that time.
But Americans often change their alliances, as it suits their foreign policy needs.
Undoubted true. But the world is not a one-man show. All you get from Dubya and Phoney Blair are primitively made-up proofs, and yet they are so surprised that nobody understands the reasons for their way of war...
IMHO, there are some problems with that 747 laser that are imminent, they are but not very technical:
The gun and its carrier are incredibly expensive.
Nuclear missiles have become incredibly cheap.
Knifes are even cheaper.
That means: While the U.S. are so fixated on high tech weapons and the incredible power of money to buy and develop superior weapons, more and more people suffer from hunger and distress.
People occasionally get angry over their situation.
If such angry people go to the next shop and buy themselves a knife, or something worse, they can do real big damage to western civilization, as we have seen with 9/11.
And such people, no laser cannon can stop.
But... the money for one of such megalomaniac laser guns could have brought a considerable number of people an existence worth to live for.
The money the U.S. and G.B. gave to Saddam Hussein when he was their big friend, could have been used for the benefit of Iraq's people and democracy.
Instead it was only for another paid war, in which the U.S. also supported the other side, Iran.
Hmmm, do you think, for instance, Dubya's country would like to spend much much money for getting rid of dangerous waste or for making dangerous experiments? (Reminder: Dubya has cancelled nearly all international treaties concerning environmental protection.)
And if there is any country which can afford theses measures, do you think the vast amount of energy you need for the transport will do good to our planet? Don't forget, this would be like many nuclear explosions, mostly because existing rockets do emit most of the energy as pure radiation.
On a more pragmatic note some industry MUST be located off planet for safety reasons.
It's cheap to throw something down to Earth (in fact, you gain lots of energy, a multiple of a standard nuclear weapon when it crashes into Earth's surface), but it's expensive to transport it up to Moon (exactly the same amount of energy, vice-versa).
You do not really believe that exactly the Chinese would pay the transport to protect nature? The have their own national Moon: Tibet, where too few people are living for any audible protest. There they already store their nuclear waste.
malloc() allocates size bytes and returns a pointer to the allocated memory. The memory is not cleared.
You have proven that malloc()'s behaviour is not to clear memory. But malloc() is a C function, not an operating system function.
C library documentation cannot be used as a guideline for operating system design.
One thing that hasn't beem mentioned is that the SecurID system also requires a pin number to log in, and employees are strongly trained not to give that to anyone.
Hm, there is (or at least, was) always a method of obtaining information by bypassing (logical) security mechanisms. They call it cracking.
Also, Merlin requires a special client, that would be a bit hard for someone using a man-in-the-middle attack to enter information into and/or see the results of.
And if someone reverse-engineered that wonderful client program? The magic encryption key is either hard-coded inside (symmetric encryption) or generated out of a user secret key on the client machine which needs to be unlocked first. If the whole algorithm is defective, you can forget even that.
Historically, only few database applications have been flawless. I don't know how old Merlin is, but according to your comment it's older than 5 years. That's exetremely old in the world of computing, and the protocol couldn't have changed much, I guess.
The main question is, who is the "keeper of the keys"? Who is able to unlock all the protective measures on secret or confidential documents? Guess who.
If you consider that, the "protection" has exactly zero value for
governments and corporations.
They still need to develop their own mechanisms of protection if they really care about their data.
Slashdot Mirror
Try astalavista.box.sk. After some time of surfing, you'll see if there have been open holes on your machine...
The problem is sitting in front of the terminal. It's absolutely no technical problem to have a partition somewhere containing all the data you need to get you system back to life if something very integral gets lost.
The problems are:
In my opinion, imitating the laisser-faire of the Linux folks doesn't help in doing everyday's administration job.
In my experience, the biggest problem with FreeBSD machines always has been finding some adequate tools to fix it when the system crashes after >2 years uptime- (Or do you have your FreeBSD 2.2 disk handy?)
Bit failures are very rare when having filesystem problems. ECCs only help with (single or multiple) bit failures. They don't help if the whole block is destroyed (which it is, after the hardware's own error correction system has failed).
Much more often it happens that the meta information of a filesystem got destroyed: You still have all your data, but you have no way to find them anymore.
The most useful way of protecting your data is an identical copy of it. That means: Backup or mirroring or duplicating (as of IBM lingo).
Whoaa... Isn't that kind of opinion to be considered anti-American?
I always thought the American way is:
- Bruce Perens is a well-known representative of Open Source who is known by nobody but himself?
- "Mr. Taylor" is a man with no first name that nobody, including Mr. Perens seems to know? And nobody knows a name of a gathering where this man has been seen?
- There is nothing like a European Union government. There is a parliament. There are commissions. But the institutions Mr. Perens cares to cite don't exist?
Would you agree?In this case, might it be possible that Mr. Perens is a creation of himself, and all his news together with him are nothing than hot air?
- Who is Bruce Perens?
- Who is "Mr. Taylor"?
- Who is "EU government"? (Nothing such alike does actually exist.)
I think a certain person has consumed too much of his favourite drug...That's like with Open Source Software:
No commercial owner == no or low funding == less motivation of the developers == frustration and distress == more terrorism.
So, if you make software proprietary, you do something against terrorism!
Twin is a non-graphical windowing environment!
But everyone who needs binary packages and a complete set of defined packages that definitely works - like people who have >100 servers - would be happier with some other distribution.
(I have personal experiences with security measures at airports and don't trust them very much...) From what I hear, some people have the weapons but no money (zero, zero, zero, absolutely nothing); others have the money and want the weapons. Yes, this is the traditional view. One country attacks another country. But there seem to be different kind of influences now...
There are more and more angry young people looking for an organization that suites their desires. They believe that U.S. is responsible for all their misery, and if not the U.S. itself, then it's Israel, which is nearly the same.
Can you imagine having neither home nor home country, no chance to get a job, no chance to earn the living of your family, nowhere to go, nowhere being allowed to live...? They have nothing to lose.
He killed so many children in the war with Iran. He killed so many people living in Kurdistan. But nobody cared, at that time.
Undoubted true. But the world is not a one-man show. All you get from Dubya and Phoney Blair are primitively made-up proofs, and yet they are so surprised that nobody understands the reasons for their way of war...- The gun and its carrier are incredibly expensive.
- Nuclear missiles have become incredibly cheap.
- Knifes are even cheaper.
That means: While the U.S. are so fixated on high tech weapons and the incredible power of money to buy and develop superior weapons, more and more people suffer from hunger and distress.People occasionally get angry over their situation.
If such angry people go to the next shop and buy themselves a knife, or something worse, they can do real big damage to western civilization, as we have seen with 9/11.
And such people, no laser cannon can stop.
But ... the money for one of such megalomaniac laser guns could have brought a considerable number of people an existence worth to live for.
The money the U.S. and G.B. gave to Saddam Hussein when he was their big friend, could have been used for the benefit of Iraq's people and democracy.
Instead it was only for another paid war, in which the U.S. also supported the other side, Iran.
And if there is any country which can afford theses measures, do you think the vast amount of energy you need for the transport will do good to our planet? Don't forget, this would be like many nuclear explosions, mostly because existing rockets do emit most of the energy as pure radiation.
You do not really believe that exactly the Chinese would pay the transport to protect nature? The have their own national Moon: Tibet, where too few people are living for any audible protest. There they already store their nuclear waste.
C library documentation cannot be used as a guideline for operating system design.
Historically, only few database applications have been flawless. I don't know how old Merlin is, but according to your comment it's older than 5 years. That's exetremely old in the world of computing, and the protocol couldn't have changed much, I guess.
Guess who.
If you consider that, the "protection" has exactly zero value for They still need to develop their own mechanisms of protection if they really care about their data.
Probably it's a very productive idea for an intelligence service to have a very good look at Windows. Even if nobody in that country uses that OS...