""I am doing a school project on cryptography and its effects on society. I am looking for information on my topic."
While Cryptography is a good topic for a school project, if it is possible, I like to know the _PURPOSE_ of that said project.
Sometimes, we need to know the purpose behind the research project to feed you correct information.
In your initial piece, you used the word "paranoia", and I want to know for what reason you use _that_ word? Is it just for fun, or do you think that the people who are supporting cryptography are paranoids?
But I did not sleep during my college level science courses, therefore, I am wondering HOW IN THE WORLD CAN SOMEBODY ALTER THE MOLECULAR STRUCTURE (of anything) using SOFTWARE?
I mean - altering molecular structures require A LOT, - and I mean A HELUVA - JUICE !
Fission and fusion are the TWO processes known to men (and women) that can alter molecular structures of _some_ substances - not all, _some_ !
Can someone please enlighten me if that story isn't an April Fools' thingy?
The Terrestrial Planet Finder and Techniques for planet detection."
The obvious next step is to find ways to get to those planets, but first, NASA has to be careful that their engineers don't mix up "inches" with "centimeters" anymore.:)
"This kind of reeks of "WE are in control, not some silly USER!!" mentality. This goes directly against at least what IMHO is the whole point of Open Source."
"Everyone can be a developer. Each USER can modify it as needed to meet their needs."
Good point !
But I am afraid that it was because of my mistake that you have jump to the wrong conclusion.
What I actually meant in the whole point is that we, the one who are responsibled for the original codes of open-source projects should also be pro-active in making sure that what we wrote makes sense.
In other words, we DO have to have pride in what we wrote - and the pride cometh in the form of GOOD SOLID CODE.
So, to make sure that what we are contributing to the world are GOOD SOLID CODE, the onus in on us to find ways to BREAK OUR OWN PROGRAMS and then find ways to mend the broken parts.
You are correct in saying that EVERYBODY has a part in this open-source thing - but we, the one who contributed the original codes, should not only rely on the users to give us feedbacks or to enhance our codes. We should take steps to ensure that what we give to the world are something that worth their while to use, or else what is the point of open-source if everything cometh from open-source projects are junks anyway?
"Bottom line is this Music is a Business. Hip Hop is a business. Linux is becoming a business."
Before you continue, please wait.
Music is NOT a business. The "business" part of MUSIC is just a _tiny_ part.
I _AM_ a musician, not by trade, but by hobbie.
I play keyboards, drums, guitars and other strings instruments like violin.
Yes, I am a TRAINED musician, and music does flow in my veins.
But I never make my music a business - not because they won't sell - I am sure I can at least capture a certain portion of a local market if I try - but I just don't feel like SELLING what I love to do.
It is like what I am doing in the GPL world - in my free time, I program for fun, and just like the music I made, the code I produce I don't want to sell them. I just want to share them with the world, so I assign open up the sources, GPLed them, and let whoever wants to use it use it.
On the other hand, Hip Hop *IS* a business because those Hip Hop people - people such as you - LIKE MONEY SO MUCH YOU WILL SELL ANYTHING FOR MONEY.
You are right on one point. Linux does not have to become business - but then, if businesses want to use Linux, they are welcome to use it. Why not? Why set up any kind of restriction?
I am not a communist and I don't believe in socialism. So, I have nothing against business. If they find the thing I (and many thousands others) have done beneficial, and they want to use it (and not re-package them and re-sell them for a profit), they are welcome to do so.
The bottomline is this -
The nature of Hip Hop is NOT the same as the one exists in Linux and other open-source projects.
Plus, Hip Hop is NOT music.
Music are beautiful, and music has a FLOW in it.
Some of the codes for Linux and many other open-sourced projects are so beautiful, you can sense a FLOW in them.
On the other hand, Hip Hop has NO flow in it.
Hipp Hop is NOISE, PURE LOUSY, _synthetic_ and _pretentious_ NOISE !
Okay, I have released two programs under GPL, and I also participated in several other GPL projects.
I never knew that I had to sign over the rights to FSF - but according to the WIRED article, it would be better if the authors sign over their rights to FSF, with Pen and Paper.
Okay, now, can anyone tell me how to do it?
I am not residing in the US, and if I sign on a piece of paper, assigning all the rights of my program to FSF, and mail that piece of paper to FSF's office in US, will _THAT_ act be considered as a LEGAL act - or will some scrupulous fella find some obscure loopholes to invalid the foreign source, signed-and-delivered right transfers?
In the same vein, ONCE I sign over the rights of my program to FSF, do I, as the author, LOST EVERY RIGHT TO THAT PROGRAM THAT I WROTE?
That is, what will happen if I want to EXTEND the capability of the program? Would I be in trouble with FSF if I augmented the program AFTER I have transfer all the rights of that program to FSF?
And one more thing, it is a normal practice in many GPL projects (and projects under freeBSD license) to assign MULTIPLE licenses - that is, the same program can be GPLed, and still the author retains the right to COMMERCIALIZE the program at a later date.
Now, in that kind of multiple-licensed program, how would one assign rights to FSF? Would assinging rights to FSF invalid ALL OTHER TYPES OF LICENSES the program currently holds?
I know what I am asking are legal questions, and most of you are not lawyers. But I hope that there will be several of you who are either familiar with the laws, or do practical works in the legal fields, and I hope that you can answer my concern.
Thank you for reading, and I'd appreciate any of your suggestion/comment.
If you feel like emailing me in private, please feel free to do so. My email address is "knife at newmail dot net".
Thank you again.
Re:The Twomobile.com people have no taste
on
Linux And Hip Hop
·
· Score: 1
"I agree. having a soul is very "low-class"."
It has nothing to do with "soul" or "blues".
Hip-hop and Rap is SOOOOO different from R&B they (rap and hip-hop) are more like the yellings of madmans on the street.
BTW, about "low class", acting like fscking GANGSTAS, is DEFINITELY a tasteless passtime !
"Great idea, but is there any reason to have them for (bio)nanotechnology in particular?"
"What about nuclear technology, genetic engineering, spaceflight, etc, etc."
I meantioned the "guideline" for nanotech because it is _STILL_ in its infancy. For other fields that you mentioned, such as genetic engineering, nuclear technology and such, to post a guideline now is still a good idea, but somehow, it has a "close the gate after the cows run off" feeling.
My point is to at least an attempt to have some sort of ethical guideline for a new field of technology that has yet to be developed into producing monstroucious after effects.
Prevention is better than cure anyway.
You also said:
"Another point is that there is no-one to enforce this kind of thing, it will be useless."
"If a company has a choice between making millions of dollars or violating ethical guidelines and pissing off lots of people the result will be pretty predictable."
"The only way to do this is to get governments to ban certain types of technology, which is slow and usually not done properly."
I hope it won't involve governments, because governments are notorious to mess up anything they touch.
Anyway, to answer your question, my thinking is that the ethical guideline is based on ETHIC, that is, it is targetted for people WITH conscience.
It is kinda like the GPL license. The GPL license, although it is based on sound laws, the enforcement of it is iffy at best, since there is NO WAY for everyone to check EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION THAT COMES OUT IN THE MARKET, and check them to see if they contain codes that have been copied from those are GPLed.
Although there _ARE_ cases of discovery - that some despictable entity plagarized codes from GPLed programs and use them in their commercial $$$ programs, I bet there _ARE_ many more commercial programs out there that are carrying GPLed codes.
So it all comes back to the CONSCIENCE thing. The guideline is an ethical guideline, and its main point is to raise awareness (plus a reminder) to everybody in general, and the researchers who are in the nanotech in particular, that they would be crossing their ethical boundary if they carry out things that are not-that-ethical, or ethically questionable.
The guideline of course can NOT foresee every single type of ethical dilemma, after all, it is JUST a guideline. But a guideline is still better than nothing at all.
That is the way I see it. Your mileage may varies, of course.:)
"As we know , the photon has null inertial mass (mi = 0 ) and it doesn't absorbs others photons (U = 0 ). So , if we put mi = 0 and U = 0 in Eq.(1.04) , the result is mg = 0 . Therefore photons have null gravitational mass."
A little bit later, on the same website, we get this claim:
"This means that any body inside the shield will have null gravitational mass with relation to the Universe."
My answer: I don't think so.
Although photons may not have detectable gravitational mass, somehow, gratitational pull DOES have effects on light.
When lights from far away starts pass near huge stars and/or blackholes, the lights were bend somewhat.
That is an indication that photons _ARE_ effected by gratitational pull after all.
"Joe Haldeman wrote of a similar system in Forever Peace (ISBN: 0-441-00566-7). The requirements for a human interface are fascinating, especially if the remote is bipedal. I want one."
I am not sure I can afford one, but then, I agree with you, I want one too !:)
BTW, thanks for mentioning that great book from Mr. Haldeman. I enjoyed it thoroughly the first time I read it.
"let say i want to audit some code, what should i do?"
I am not an auditor, but the general guideline for auditing is that the first thing is to set up test environments - test cases - trying to find ways to BREAK whatever you are trying to audit.
If it's a database program, then you try your best to overload or dump whatever things you can think of to the db and see if (or when) it dies, and document how that happens.
Then, you go down to fix whatever is wrong.
"i'm a good c programmer, what should i look for? buffer overflow? useless suid?"
Whatever that breaks the program or code.
Sometimes the real culprit are not that easy to spot. SOmetimes it's not the code per se, but the DESIGN of the entire program.
Nanotech is still in its infancy, but the potential power of nanotechnology should not be overlooked.
Please allow me to suggest that an ethical clause or guideline should be introduced for nanotech, for we do not want to repeat the same mistakes we have for all other technological innovation - that instead of using the tools for the betterment of the world, we human employ what we know to do BAD THINGS more than we do good things.
There are too many kinds of examples out there, from the Nuclear Science that produces nuclear bombs, to dynamite [TNT, plastique} that are _still_ used to blow up people in wartime, to electric chain-saw that has accelerated the pace of tree cutting (and the disappearing of so many forest area all around the world) and so on and so forth.
I know what I am suggesting may not sounds right, it may even sounds kinda restrictive, but there comes a time we ought to inculcate the sense of RESPONSIBILITY into the minds of our bright young ones, the future scientists that may employ or discover future technologies such as nanotechnology / bio-engineering and so on.
I am not asking much, I am merely suggesting an ethnical guideline to minimize the chance of ABUSE and MISUSE of techno-knowledge.
"f they need auditing, try to ask them WHAT should be audited."
I think it ought to be US who ask the question. We, the people who are committed to Linux and other open-source project, should be the one who take the proactive step, and ask the questions ourselves.
If we wait until the DoD or others to tell us what needs to be audited, then we are not better than MicroSoft - DoD as a USER should not be responsible for the SECURITY and ROBUSTNESS of Linux, and we who have contributed to Linux and other open-source projects should make sure that what we produce will stand up to any kind of test, and we must make sure that we commit a portion of our time to device the various testcase in making sure what we are producing is up to the challenges.
Let me reiterate -
The initiative to make a better Linux (and all other open-source projects) should be ours.
Is there any gnu/freeware that are robust enough to be categorized as "Enterprise-Level"?
Please don't take this as an insult, I am just genuinely wanting to find out the answer.
If you know about any, whether it is ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) or office-suites, or databases, or whatever that is/are freeware/opensource/gnu (Free as in freedom and/or beer), please drop me a not or two.
Since Linux is HOT nowadays, locally I've been swamped by many of my friends wanting to know more about, or learn how to use Linux.
I can't find the time to do all the handholding and there isn't any "LUG" in where I stay - don't ask me to start a LUG, I just can't find the time, at least not yet.
So, this is my question - Is there any online place where one can go learn more about Linux, or some basic Linux training (other than the compaq one that cost $$$)? I mean the web-version, not the newsgroup/mailling list version since most of my friends aren't exactly familiar with the Net yet.
If someone drew a graffiti on the wall of one of my building, and the graffiti contains remarks slandering one particularly person, am I, the onwer of the building, be responsible for the slandering?
I can understand that if I am the "artist" who drew the graffiti, then I may be sued for slander.
But if I am just the owner of the building its walls are painted with tons and tons of graffiti, with one of them sladering one particular person, why should I be charged?
It's the same thing as the case where that professor sues the website owner - the owner of the website is NOT the writer of the message, and if the professor has REAL GUTS, he should go after the writers of those slandering message himself.
Methinks the professor has neither the guts nor the wits to know that the problem doesn't stem from the messages but himself.
If he is a GOOD professor (I've had several), people (at least most of them) will not do such a thing to him. Even if that happens, there will be others who will come to his aid.
I mean, if I see one of my favorite professors being slandered, I will defend his honor, as good professors are hard to come by.
Re:Injustice to Linux and open-source !
on
Linux And Hip Hop
·
· Score: 1
"If hip-hop and rap is so "poetic", why do we have so many drive-by alley shooting with those hip-hop/rap blaring at the background?"
"Great point, very insightful. I mean if they were really poetic they would quote shakespeare to each other, ie drive-by quotings."
Oh well... do you see any of them Hip-Hop "KINGS" quoting shakespear, huh?
Actually, the real party in the "pushing it" column isn't the length of the cable, but the university itself.
1. The U says it doesn't have the money to hook up ethernet, so the students hook up the ethernet, without charging the U, and then the U comes and prosecute them for THEFT !
The students should have CHARGED the U for what they have done - at least, in that manner, they are NOT stealing anything - all they did was participating in a REWIRING PROJECT !!
2. The dormitory the students were staying are WITHIN the campus of OSU. In other words, the OSU is the landlord.
So, how can you charge people of STEALING things when they never even MOVE ANYTHING OFF YOUR PROPERTY?
Geeeesh... this whole deal stinks to high heaven.
But then, what do you expect, it's Oklahoma, the state that is only famous for oil rush and nothing else.
"Hip hop (in its truest form) is about self expression, about doing _your_ thing, and adding your voice to a community of creativity."
Let me tell you something - ANYTHING in their TRUEST FORM may be either GOOD or BAD, but that STILL doesn't mean shit.
What Hip-Hop, and Rap, has "EVOLVED" into, from their "TRUEST FORM" is BLATANT COMMERCIALIZATION, SHOW-OFF-ISM, GANSTA-ISM, SEX=ISM, IDIOT-ISM, and VIOLENCE.
So many people from the "hip-hop/rap" group think that they are "GREAT" just because they get to spray bullets into their enemies.
Is that what we want? More violence in this world?
Linux and all other open-source projects, and the people participate in it, do not believe in violece. We do not believe in showing off. We also do not call our female friends "Hoe" or "Bitch".
We don't need to show off our "MACHO"-ness to "SCARE" the whole world. We don't need to scare anybody, period.
In other words, Linux and all other open-source projects, and all the people participate in it, do not need to go back to our "TRUEST FORM" to be non-violence and to have a good intention to make this world a better place.
We don't need to go back to any "TRUEST FORM" because we don't need to PRETEND to be anything we are not.
We are just people, people who love to contribute our time, effort and talent to make this world a better place. That is all.
Slashdot Mirror
I think Linux is due for an official, top to bottom security audit.
Do you think so?
Dear Professor,
May I enquire your view on the (possible)
link between AI (Artificial Intelligence),
GA (Genetic Algorithm), and EC (Evolutionary
Computation)?
I would be very grateful if you can share
your view on these three fields of study.
Will AI benefitted by incorporating the
techniques of EC and GA ?
If so, how do you think GA and EC can best
contribute to the advancement of AI?
If no, why not?
Thank you for your time, professor.
You said:
""I am doing a school project on
cryptography and its effects on
society. I am looking for
information on my topic."
While Cryptography is a good topic for a school project, if it is possible, I like to know the _PURPOSE_ of that said project.
Sometimes, we need to know the purpose behind the research project to feed you correct information.
In your initial piece, you used the word "paranoia", and I want to know for what reason you use _that_ word? Is it just for fun, or do you think that the people who are supporting cryptography are paranoids?
I am not a chemist. I am not a physicist either.
But I did not sleep during my college level science courses, therefore, I am wondering HOW IN THE WORLD CAN SOMEBODY ALTER THE MOLECULAR STRUCTURE (of anything) using SOFTWARE?
I mean - altering molecular structures require A LOT, - and I mean A HELUVA - JUICE !
Fission and fusion are the TWO processes known to men (and women) that can alter molecular structures of _some_ substances - not all, _some_ !
Can someone please enlighten me if that story isn't an April Fools' thingy?
There is a group developing IEEE1394 compliance for Linux.
Their (old) website is located at http://eclipt.uni-klu.ac.at/ieee1394/, with their new website at linux1394.sourceforge.net
Hope this helps.
Sorry, I don't do no spring cleaning on April Fools' Day.
"Two of JPL's projects are at:
The Terrestrial Planet Finder and
Techniques for planet detection."
The obvious next step is to find ways to get to those planets, but first, NASA has to be careful that their engineers don't mix up "inches" with "centimeters" anymore.
Your wrote:
"This kind of reeks of "WE are in control,
not some silly USER!!" mentality. This goes
directly against at least what IMHO is the
whole point of Open Source."
"Everyone can be a developer. Each USER can
modify it as needed to meet their needs."
Good point !
But I am afraid that it was because of my mistake that you have jump to the wrong conclusion.
What I actually meant in the whole point is that we, the one who are responsibled for the original codes of open-source projects should also be pro-active in making sure that what we wrote makes sense.
In other words, we DO have to have pride in what we wrote - and the pride cometh in the form of GOOD SOLID CODE.
So, to make sure that what we are contributing to the world are GOOD SOLID CODE, the onus in on us to find ways to BREAK OUR OWN PROGRAMS and then find ways to mend the broken parts.
You are correct in saying that EVERYBODY has a part in this open-source thing - but we, the one who contributed the original codes, should not only rely on the users to give us feedbacks or to enhance our codes. We should take steps to ensure that what we give to the world are something that worth their while to use, or else what is the point of open-source if everything cometh from open-source projects are junks anyway?
In your reply to me, you mentioned:
"Bottom line is this Music is a Business.
Hip Hop is a business. Linux is becoming
a business."
Before you continue, please wait.
Music is NOT a business. The "business" part of MUSIC is just a _tiny_ part.
I _AM_ a musician, not by trade, but by hobbie.
I play keyboards, drums, guitars and other strings instruments like violin.
Yes, I am a TRAINED musician, and music does flow in my veins.
But I never make my music a business - not because they won't sell - I am sure I can at least capture a certain portion of a local market if I try - but I just don't feel like SELLING what I love to do.
It is like what I am doing in the GPL world - in my free time, I program for fun, and just like the music I made, the code I produce I don't want to sell them. I just want to share them with the world, so I assign open up the sources, GPLed them, and let whoever wants to use it use it.
On the other hand, Hip Hop *IS* a business because those Hip Hop people - people such as you - LIKE MONEY SO MUCH YOU WILL SELL ANYTHING FOR MONEY.
You are right on one point. Linux does not have to become business - but then, if businesses want to use Linux, they are welcome to use it. Why not? Why set up any kind of restriction?
I am not a communist and I don't believe in socialism. So, I have nothing against business. If they find the thing I (and many thousands others) have done beneficial, and they want to use it (and not re-package them and re-sell them for a profit), they are welcome to do so.
The bottomline is this -
The nature of Hip Hop is NOT the same
as the one exists in Linux and other
open-source projects.
Plus, Hip Hop is NOT music.
Music are beautiful, and music has a FLOW in it.
Some of the codes for Linux and many other open-sourced projects are so beautiful, you can sense a FLOW in them.
On the other hand, Hip Hop has NO flow in
it.
Hipp Hop is NOISE, PURE LOUSY, _synthetic_
and _pretentious_ NOISE !
Okay, I have released two programs under GPL, and I also participated in several other GPL projects.
I never knew that I had to sign over the rights to FSF - but according to the WIRED article, it would be better if the authors sign over their rights to FSF, with Pen and Paper.
Okay, now, can anyone tell me how to do it?
I am not residing in the US, and if I sign on a piece of paper, assigning all the rights of my program to FSF, and mail that piece of paper to FSF's office in US, will _THAT_ act be considered as a LEGAL act - or will some scrupulous fella find some obscure loopholes to invalid the foreign source, signed-and-delivered right transfers?
In the same vein, ONCE I sign over the rights of my program to FSF, do I, as the author, LOST EVERY RIGHT TO THAT PROGRAM THAT I WROTE?
That is, what will happen if I want to EXTEND the capability of the program? Would I be in trouble with FSF if I augmented the program AFTER I have transfer all the rights of that program to FSF?
And one more thing, it is a normal practice in many GPL projects (and projects under freeBSD license) to assign MULTIPLE licenses - that is, the same program can be GPLed, and still the author retains the right to COMMERCIALIZE the program at a later date.
Now, in that kind of multiple-licensed program, how would one assign rights to FSF? Would assinging rights to FSF invalid ALL OTHER TYPES OF LICENSES the program currently holds?
I know what I am asking are legal questions, and most of you are not lawyers. But I hope that there will be several of you who are either familiar with the laws, or do practical works in the legal fields, and I hope that you can answer my concern.
Thank you for reading, and I'd appreciate any of your suggestion/comment.
If you feel like emailing me in private, please feel free to do so. My email address is "knife at newmail dot net".
Thank you again.
"I agree. having a soul is very "low-class"."
It has nothing to do with "soul" or "blues".
Hip-hop and Rap is SOOOOO different from R&B they (rap and hip-hop) are more like the yellings of madmans on the street.
BTW, about "low class", acting like fscking GANGSTAS, is DEFINITELY a tasteless passtime !
Thank you for your reply.
You said:
"Great idea, but is there any reason
to have them for (bio)nanotechnology
in particular?"
"What about nuclear technology, genetic
engineering, spaceflight, etc, etc."
I meantioned the "guideline" for nanotech because it is _STILL_ in its infancy. For other fields that you mentioned, such as genetic engineering, nuclear technology and such, to post a guideline now is still a good idea, but somehow, it has a "close the gate after the cows run off" feeling.
My point is to at least an attempt to have some sort of ethical guideline for a new field of technology that has yet to be developed into producing monstroucious after effects.
Prevention is better than cure anyway.
You also said:
"Another point is that there is no-one
to enforce this kind of thing, it will
be useless."
"If a company has a choice between
making millions of dollars or
violating ethical guidelines and
pissing off lots of people the result
will be pretty predictable."
"The only way to do this is to get
governments to ban certain types of
technology, which is slow and usually
not done properly."
I hope it won't involve governments, because governments are notorious to mess up anything they touch.
Anyway, to answer your question, my thinking is that the ethical guideline is based on ETHIC, that is, it is targetted for people WITH conscience.
It is kinda like the GPL license. The GPL license, although it is based on sound laws, the enforcement of it is iffy at best, since there is NO WAY for everyone to check EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION THAT COMES OUT IN THE MARKET, and check them to see if they contain codes that have been copied from those are GPLed.
Although there _ARE_ cases of discovery - that some despictable entity plagarized codes from GPLed programs and use them in their commercial $$$ programs, I bet there _ARE_ many more commercial programs out there that are carrying GPLed codes.
So it all comes back to the CONSCIENCE thing. The guideline is an ethical guideline, and its main point is to raise awareness (plus a reminder) to everybody in general, and the researchers who are in the nanotech in particular, that they would be crossing their ethical boundary if they carry out things that are not-that-ethical, or ethically questionable.
The guideline of course can NOT foresee every single type of ethical dilemma, after all, it is JUST a guideline. But a guideline is still better than nothing at all.
That is the way I see it. Your mileage may varies, of course.
From the start of the website:
"As we know , the photon has null inertial
mass (mi = 0 ) and it doesn't absorbs
others photons (U = 0 ). So , if we put
mi = 0 and U = 0 in Eq.(1.04) , the result
is mg = 0 . Therefore photons have null
gravitational mass."
A little bit later, on the same website, we get this claim:
"This means that any body inside the
shield will have null gravitational mass
with relation to the Universe."
My answer: I don't think so.
Although photons may not have detectable gravitational mass, somehow, gratitational pull DOES have effects on light.
When lights from far away starts pass near huge stars and/or blackholes, the lights were bend somewhat.
That is an indication that photons _ARE_ effected by gratitational pull after all.
You wrote:
"Joe Haldeman wrote of a similar system
in Forever Peace (ISBN: 0-441-00566-7).
The requirements for a human interface
are fascinating, especially if the
remote is bipedal. I want one."
I am not sure I can afford one, but then, I agree with you, I want one too !
BTW, thanks for mentioning that great book from Mr. Haldeman. I enjoyed it thoroughly the first time I read it.
You said:
"Could oyu posible have confused the
word ethnical with ethical?"
Sorry, it was a stupid typo !
You are right, it should be ethical, not ethnical.
Thanks for your keen eye and your kind reminder. I stand corrected.
You said:
"let say i want to audit some code,
what should i do?"
I am not an auditor, but the general guideline for auditing is that the first thing is to set up test environments - test cases - trying to find ways to BREAK whatever you are trying to audit.
If it's a database program, then you try your best to overload or dump whatever things you can think of to the db and see if (or when) it dies, and document how that happens.
Then, you go down to fix whatever is wrong.
"i'm a good c programmer, what should
i look for? buffer overflow? useless
suid?"
Whatever that breaks the program or code.
Sometimes the real culprit are not that easy to spot. SOmetimes it's not the code per se, but the DESIGN of the entire program.
[ Reply to This | Paren
Thank you for your reply.
I generally agree to what you have said, but there is one thing that you have said I must point out though -
You said:
"Fortunately, with a technology that
can cause a problem, you also get
the solution. All somebody else
needs to do is make a nanocure."
I am afraid you are being too optimistic.
Let us not debate about future possibilities, let us just stick to what we have NOW.
For example: AIDS.
AIDS has been in the headlines ever since the 1980's, and where is the cure?
I mean, REAL CURE?
If it is so easy to find cure to all ailment, then there wouldn't be such needs for so many people doing the researches all over the world already.
Nanotech is still in its infancy, but the potential power of nanotechnology should not be overlooked.
Please allow me to suggest that an ethical clause or guideline should be introduced for nanotech, for we do not want to repeat the same mistakes we have for all other technological innovation - that instead of using the tools for the betterment of the world, we human employ what we know to do BAD THINGS more than we do good things.
There are too many kinds of examples out there, from the Nuclear Science that produces nuclear bombs, to dynamite [TNT, plastique} that are _still_ used to blow up people in wartime, to electric chain-saw that has accelerated the pace of tree cutting (and the disappearing of so many forest area all around the world) and so on and so forth.
I know what I am suggesting may not sounds right, it may even sounds kinda restrictive, but there comes a time we ought to inculcate the sense of RESPONSIBILITY into the minds of our bright young ones, the future scientists that may employ or discover future technologies such as nanotechnology / bio-engineering and so on.
I am not asking much, I am merely suggesting an ethnical guideline to minimize the chance of ABUSE and MISUSE of techno-knowledge.
"f they need auditing, try to ask them
WHAT should be audited."
I think it ought to be US who ask the question. We, the people who are committed to Linux and other open-source project, should be the one who take the proactive step, and ask the questions ourselves.
If we wait until the DoD or others to tell us what needs to be audited, then we are not better than MicroSoft - DoD as a USER should not be responsible for the SECURITY and ROBUSTNESS of Linux, and we who have contributed to Linux and other open-source projects should make sure that what we produce will stand up to any kind of test, and we must make sure that we commit a portion of our time to device the various testcase in making sure what we are producing is up to the challenges.
Let me reiterate -
The initiative to make a better Linux
(and all other open-source projects)
should be ours.
It shouldn't be DoD or any other users.
I've been wondering a similar question myself.
Is there any gnu/freeware that are robust enough to be categorized as "Enterprise-Level"?
Please don't take this as an insult, I am just genuinely wanting to find out the answer.
If you know about any, whether it is ERP (Enterprise Resource Planning) or office-suites, or databases, or whatever that is/are freeware/opensource/gnu (Free as in freedom and/or beer), please drop me a not or two.
My email address is: knife@newmail.net
Many thanks in advance.
Since Linux is HOT nowadays, locally I've been swamped by many of my friends wanting to know more about, or learn how to use Linux.
I can't find the time to do all the handholding and there isn't any "LUG" in where I stay - don't ask me to start a LUG, I just can't find the time, at least not yet.
So, this is my question - Is there any online place where one can go learn more about Linux, or some basic Linux training (other than the compaq one that cost $$$)? I mean the web-version, not the newsgroup/mailling list version since most of my friends aren't exactly familiar with the Net yet.
Any answer would be very much appreciated.
Thanks in advance.
I have a question.
If someone drew a graffiti on the wall of one of my building, and the graffiti contains remarks slandering one particularly person, am I, the onwer of the building, be responsible for the slandering?
I can understand that if I am the "artist" who drew the graffiti, then I may be sued for slander.
But if I am just the owner of the building its walls are painted with tons and tons of graffiti, with one of them sladering one particular person, why should I be charged?
It's the same thing as the case where that professor sues the website owner - the owner of the website is NOT the writer of the message, and if the professor has REAL GUTS, he should go after the writers of those slandering message himself.
Methinks the professor has neither the guts nor the wits to know that the problem doesn't stem from the messages but himself.
If he is a GOOD professor (I've had several), people (at least most of them) will not do such a thing to him. Even if that happens, there will be others who will come to his aid.
I mean, if I see one of my favorite professors being slandered, I will defend his honor, as good professors are hard to come by.
"If hip-hop and rap is so "poetic",
why do we have so many drive-by
alley shooting with those
hip-hop/rap blaring at the
background?"
"Great point, very insightful. I mean
if they were really poetic they would
quote shakespeare to each other, ie
drive-by quotings."
Oh well... do you see any of them Hip-Hop "KINGS" quoting shakespear, huh?
I mean, if you want _CLASS_, then SHOW some.
Actually, the real party in the "pushing it" column isn't the length of the cable, but the university itself.
1. The U says it doesn't have the money
to hook up ethernet, so the students
hook up the ethernet, without charging
the U, and then the U comes and
prosecute them for THEFT !
The students should have CHARGED the U
for what they have done - at least, in
that manner, they are NOT stealing
anything - all they did was participating
in a REWIRING PROJECT !!
2. The dormitory the students were staying
are WITHIN the campus of OSU. In other
words, the OSU is the landlord.
So, how can you charge people of STEALING
things when they never even MOVE ANYTHING
OFF YOUR PROPERTY?
Geeeesh... this whole deal stinks to high heaven.
But then, what do you expect, it's Oklahoma, the state that is only famous for oil rush and nothing else.
You said:
"Hip hop (in its truest form) is about self
expression, about doing _your_ thing, and
adding your voice to a community of
creativity."
Let me tell you something - ANYTHING in their TRUEST FORM may be either GOOD or BAD, but that STILL doesn't mean shit.
What Hip-Hop, and Rap, has "EVOLVED" into, from their "TRUEST FORM" is BLATANT COMMERCIALIZATION, SHOW-OFF-ISM, GANSTA-ISM, SEX=ISM, IDIOT-ISM, and VIOLENCE.
So many people from the "hip-hop/rap" group think that they are "GREAT" just because they get to spray bullets into their enemies.
Is that what we want? More violence in this world?
Linux and all other open-source projects, and the people participate in it, do not believe in violece. We do not believe in showing off. We also do not call our female friends "Hoe" or "Bitch".
We don't need to show off our "MACHO"-ness to "SCARE" the whole world. We don't need to scare anybody, period.
In other words, Linux and all other open-source projects, and all the people participate in it, do not need to go back to our "TRUEST FORM" to be non-violence and to have a good intention to make this world a better place.
We don't need to go back to any "TRUEST FORM" because we don't need to PRETEND to be anything we are not.
We are just people, people who love to contribute our time, effort and talent to make this world a better place. That is all.