Position the fingerprint scanner well within the center of a set bear trap. If the fingerprint doesn't match the database, the electromagnetic latch on the bear trap would release, and SNAP!, it would catch the thief in place until the police arrive. Oh, wait...
So we fine them. Big huge lofty fines. I don't have a problem with that, and they can surely afford it, can't they? But releasing source that was never intended to be released is bad. But that's what some people want. As much as people can't wait to see the complete distruction of Microsoft, et al., they don't know what a horrible impact it could have on society that we know it today. Admit it or not, but many of the mainstream apps for Linux these days are alternatives to Microsoft products. If there is no MS, there are no alternatives. I'm not saying that OSS programmers aren't talented or don't innovate, but I can guarantee you that there would be a stunted growth in the amount of OSS software that is released should that happen. Remember what the chairman of GM once said: "What's good for GM is good for America." Same here, if you like it or not --- releasing source and company secrets is a bad idea from the get-go. =)
maybe we need to disband Microsoft, take the source code and OSS it.
That's absurd. The code isn't YOURS, it doesn't belong to THE OSS COMMUNITY, it belongs to MS. You, nor the government, nor anyone else, have the rights to the source code. It's not your property. It's theirs. You may not like it, but this isn't Red China --- MS's source code unfortunately in your case does not belong to the "state" --- it belongs to MS and MS only.
What if you decided that GM was a monopoly. Does it sound ethical that we should storm down the doors in Detroit and steal all their engineering files so that the, uh, "community" could "make improvements," all the while GM crumbles to pieces while you capatilize on their intellectual property. That's ridiculous and unethical (note: I never did see the 'GNU lecture on ethics'). You don't have that right. "Taking the source code" sounds to me an awful lot like stealing, but I guess since you're a commie that's OK.
What if someone wrote a song, and I took the lyrics and made a killing at the record store, not giving credit to the original author (to whom the intellectual property rightfully belongs), nor paying him or her royalties for stealing his or her song? That doesn't sound right either. Perhaps you need to remove your head from your bunghole and realize that it's not your right to steal any source code. If Windows was OSS that would be OK, but it's NOT, nor will it EVER BE. One thing I haven't been able to figure out is why OSS zealots are so vocal about "releasing the MS source code." If Linux and its derivatives and related software are so "superior" as the community often dictates, then why the fudge are you so interested in getting your grubby paws on the Windows source? Is it that important, or are you just so stunned at Windows' superiority that you just have this dying need to utilize Microsoft's code in your OS/applications/etc to make THEM better? Or is it something else. If it's not, please admit it before making outrageous claims. (Or is it just a lame attempt at karma whoring? Cause if it is, it seems to have worked.)
Yeah, LOL. Screw the laptop, they might even do it for the challenge. And a case of red bull.
(from the original article: We have been subjected to an increasing number of break-ins and website defacements over the past few months.
Holy shit. It doesn't take a fucking Kreskin to secure a web server. What, did they set the root password to 'password' or something?!? Man, Mandrake makes it super simple to do security nowadays (from the sounds of this article I'd be surprised they're running anything geekier). And if you're running IIS, whoo boy, with Microsoft's IIS Lockdown tool, it's so exceedingly simple you can get a troupe of trained circus monkeys to secure that web server of yours (discounting the fact that you'll get monkey piss and shit all over the server keyboard, but that's another story).
My other question to the article submitter:
You did reinstall the operating system after the first defacement, and restore from data, not binaries backups from before the defacement, RIGHT? Ok, just checking.
You're right, nothing is really that interesting in the article, except for this:
Luckily, in her purse Tracy had been carrying around a 32MB 72 pin SIMM from a Dell that got RMA'ed at her work. She yoinked the RAM figuring I could use it. She's my main lady, and I can't extoll the virtues of marrying a geek grrrl enough. The new RAM works and Tracy r0x0rs.
God damn, if she's hot, she could be my wife anyday. Uh-huh-huh-huh-huh-huh...
But aesthetics does have a real effect on your attitude while using a computer
Well, when you reflect on it, looking at CDE on a SparcStation for too long makes me want to throw the box at the wall. And you have to love the CDE color schemes as well... let's see there is the 'bright pink on dark purple, no.... dark blue on bright purple, no.... fuscia on pink, no..... bright gold on blue, no....'
Personally I think whoever designed CDE didn't really give a shit, as compared to Microsoft and Apple who practically give people psychological tests when designing the GUIs. Shoot, I remember that Microsoft once conducted a large-scale survey to see if people liked the shadows better on one side of the icon or the other. Freakin' shadows! And all this time the CDE people are like, "purple it is, we don't care, we're not changin' it."
from the article: The main reason I keep using GNOME is that the icons on KDE are aesthetically offensive to me. And the letter K is kind of offensive, it's not very elegant.
Yeah... just like the word "Start" will keep people from using Windows. The same goes for the Apple menu on MacOS. Puh-leeze. I think this guy is a little shallow by determining his desktop on the types of icons and menu picture! You use a GUI to help you accomplish work faster... NOT to debate about how pretty the pictures are!
Hmm, that's pretty funny cause when the worms hit, my IIS 4.0 box was immume and never affected. Since the web server responsibility was MINE, I made sure that IIS was secured... yeah that actually means "securing the box" (i.e., removing all script mappings, modules, etc that were not being actively used, securing the file ACLs, among other configuration changes). Yup, IIS was NEVER affected, therefore we were never hit. It still logs tons of hits per day from servers outside of the network as well.
It's funny that I think of the same thing when I see Apache servers that are running everything up to and including mod_YourMom... people need a lesson in security... it doesn't matter if it's IIS or Apache or NT or Linux or Joe's OS.... it makes no difference. Security holes exist in every OS and configuration... it's just the job of the astute sysadmin to make sure that the holes are plugged before the box goes into production use.
I believe Las Vegas is using junked Mark IV monorails that Disney World used back in the day. Remember the scene in that episode where the logo peels off and underneath it says "1964 World's Fair?" Yeah...
The problem with your scenario is that Microsoft is not giving people a choice. If you buy a computer from Dell, Compaq, etc. you pretty much have to buy Windows because that's the way MS's licensing practices work.
Riiiight. Look at the flipside. People who DON'T want Windows will probably be building their own computers (excluding laptops). Remember, for Dell, etc. to allow Linux, etc. on their list, those companies also have to support it, too. That means more training for the techs, and more loss for Dell, et. al. Not to mention that it won't sell well cause what does everyone and their grandma want? Windows. Enough about "MS licensing practices," will someone just freakin' admit that it's economically feasible to do what they do now?!?
MS has forced all other players out of the game. Perhaps its because of their superior products...
If this were indeed true as you state, what is exactly wrong with that? What, GM can't build superior cars nowadays? They have to make sure that Ford has an equal or better share of the business? Of course not!
another item that also annoys me is XP configured to use time.windows.com as an ntp server. That should be a selectable option, or one that should be picked up from the dhcp server... but then I digress...
Try checking HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\DateTime\Servers and then tell me you can't write a shell script to fix that!;P Also, if you logon to a WinNT/2k domain I believe that time is synched to it. But you can run an internal NTP server and have that registry entry refreshed from a logon script.
Win2K uses DNS names that use the underscore character. Never mind mentioning that this is specifically verbotten in the DNS RFC's..
That's probably in there for backwards compatibility with WINS... let's say you have a bunch of NT boxes named Jims_box, Daves_box and so on... those were legal in WINS but it would be hell in upgrading.
Novell allows the same thing... you can refer to servers like filesrv_1.foohost.bardomain... it's just not on the Internet that it's allowed. Don't dog on details if you don't understand them.
Let's say it didn't ship that way by default. That means that every corporate install of Windows 2000 would have to be manually configured to interoperate with its native servers. It's more of a conveinence to Win2k shops.
On the other hand, I'm surprised that this huge "Win2k DDOS attack" on "key internet infrastructure" has risen so suddenly, as these settings have existed since 1999 and Windows 2000 has done the same thing till then. What, did these machines suddenly come to life and grab the Internet by its balls?
That may be true, but you're missing the point... that the ideal location for many Win2k workstationss is behind a corporate firewall... so they would be contacting the internal DDNS server and not one on the outside.
You must be a Linux zealot, since you have no idea what your are talking about. This isn't a security hole. In fact, it's more of a feature. Windows 2000 differs from NT in that instead of using WINS for machine naming on the network, Win2k has transitioned to using Dynamic DNS instead of using the antiquated NetBIOS/WINS naming convention for local LANs. Now, these machines come set default for LANs with this modern config that are USING WINDOWS 2000 SERVER. The _default_ configuration is the one that will benefit the most people... those using Windows 2000 Pro on a Win2k LAN! Why on earth would/should it ship differently? Win2k networks most often go with Win2k servers! This problem only affects old-fashioned UNIX servers by improperly configured Windows 2000 clients that think they are connected to a W2K LAN. If you care to see why this is true, read this article.
No, the problem lies in stupid sysadmins NOT explicitly shutting it off. As for the connection settings, it is set up by default that way because if you are querying a Windows 2000 DNS/DHCP server, it supports DDNS (as per RFC 2136). It only causes problems with UNIX servers. Read this article for some detailed info about the issue. I assume it's a similar deal with the Macs.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't baby oil cause condoms to break down? "a few thousand dollars in condoms and water-based lubricant" sounds much better. =)
1984 isn't just a book any more.)
It's called Singapore.
"They love it because it takes the cash out of the hands of 18-year-old clerks," Nickerson said.
Because, of course, everyone knows that 18-year-olds can't count.
Position the fingerprint scanner well within the center of a set bear trap. If the fingerprint doesn't match the database, the electromagnetic latch on the bear trap would release, and SNAP!, it would catch the thief in place until the police arrive. Oh, wait...
Yeah, and on top of that, guess how dirty their office is now that their AS/400 conked out?
So we fine them. Big huge lofty fines. I don't have a problem with that, and they can surely afford it, can't they? But releasing source that was never intended to be released is bad. But that's what some people want. As much as people can't wait to see the complete distruction of Microsoft, et al., they don't know what a horrible impact it could have on society that we know it today. Admit it or not, but many of the mainstream apps for Linux these days are alternatives to Microsoft products. If there is no MS, there are no alternatives. I'm not saying that OSS programmers aren't talented or don't innovate, but I can guarantee you that there would be a stunted growth in the amount of OSS software that is released should that happen. Remember what the chairman of GM once said: "What's good for GM is good for America." Same here, if you like it or not --- releasing source and company secrets is a bad idea from the get-go. =)
maybe we need to disband Microsoft, take the source code and OSS it.
That's absurd. The code isn't YOURS, it doesn't belong to THE OSS COMMUNITY, it belongs to MS. You, nor the government, nor anyone else, have the rights to the source code. It's not your property. It's theirs. You may not like it, but this isn't Red China --- MS's source code unfortunately in your case does not belong to the "state" --- it belongs to MS and MS only.
What if you decided that GM was a monopoly. Does it sound ethical that we should storm down the doors in Detroit and steal all their engineering files so that the, uh, "community" could "make improvements," all the while GM crumbles to pieces while you capatilize on their intellectual property. That's ridiculous and unethical (note: I never did see the 'GNU lecture on ethics'). You don't have that right. "Taking the source code" sounds to me an awful lot like stealing, but I guess since you're a commie that's OK.
What if someone wrote a song, and I took the lyrics and made a killing at the record store, not giving credit to the original author (to whom the intellectual property rightfully belongs), nor paying him or her royalties for stealing his or her song? That doesn't sound right either. Perhaps you need to remove your head from your bunghole and realize that it's not your right to steal any source code. If Windows was OSS that would be OK, but it's NOT, nor will it EVER BE. One thing I haven't been able to figure out is why OSS zealots are so vocal about "releasing the MS source code." If Linux and its derivatives and related software are so "superior" as the community often dictates, then why the fudge are you so interested in getting your grubby paws on the Windows source? Is it that important, or are you just so stunned at Windows' superiority that you just have this dying need to utilize Microsoft's code in your OS/applications/etc to make THEM better? Or is it something else. If it's not, please admit it before making outrageous claims. (Or is it just a lame attempt at karma whoring? Cause if it is, it seems to have worked.)
the official "most worthless place on the continent"
That would be New Mexico, followed by Utah, with Nevada in a close third. How can you say that? Nevada has casinos, and legal prositiution!
This is a disaster waiting to happen...
What's that steaming puddle of plastic for?"
Duuuuuuuuude! It's my Mac Bong, man!
Yeah, LOL. Screw the laptop, they might even do it for the challenge. And a case of red bull.
(from the original article: We have been subjected to an increasing number of break-ins and website defacements over the past few months.
Holy shit. It doesn't take a fucking Kreskin to secure a web server. What, did they set the root password to 'password' or something?!? Man, Mandrake makes it super simple to do security nowadays (from the sounds of this article I'd be surprised they're running anything geekier). And if you're running IIS, whoo boy, with Microsoft's IIS Lockdown tool, it's so exceedingly simple you can get a troupe of trained circus monkeys to secure that web server of yours (discounting the fact that you'll get monkey piss and shit all over the server keyboard, but that's another story).
My other question to the article submitter:
You did reinstall the operating system after the first defacement, and restore from data, not binaries backups from before the defacement, RIGHT? Ok, just checking.
You're right, nothing is really that interesting in the article, except for this:
Luckily, in her purse Tracy had been carrying around a 32MB 72 pin SIMM from a Dell that got RMA'ed at her work. She yoinked the RAM figuring I could use it. She's my main lady, and I can't extoll the virtues of marrying a geek grrrl enough. The new RAM works and Tracy r0x0rs.
God damn, if she's hot, she could be my wife anyday. Uh-huh-huh-huh-huh-huh...
But aesthetics does have a real effect on your attitude while using a computer
Well, when you reflect on it, looking at CDE on a SparcStation for too long makes me want to throw the box at the wall. And you have to love the CDE color schemes as well... let's see there is the 'bright pink on dark purple, no.... dark blue on bright purple, no.... fuscia on pink, no..... bright gold on blue, no....'
Personally I think whoever designed CDE didn't really give a shit, as compared to Microsoft and Apple who practically give people psychological tests when designing the GUIs. Shoot, I remember that Microsoft once conducted a large-scale survey to see if people liked the shadows better on one side of the icon or the other. Freakin' shadows! And all this time the CDE people are like, "purple it is, we don't care, we're not changin' it."
from the article: The main reason I keep using GNOME is that the icons on KDE are aesthetically offensive to me. And the letter K is kind of offensive, it's not very elegant.
Yeah... just like the word "Start" will keep people from using Windows. The same goes for the Apple menu on MacOS. Puh-leeze. I think this guy is a little shallow by determining his desktop on the types of icons and menu picture! You use a GUI to help you accomplish work faster... NOT to debate about how pretty the pictures are!
Hmm, that's pretty funny cause when the worms hit, my IIS 4.0 box was immume and never affected. Since the web server responsibility was MINE, I made sure that IIS was secured... yeah that actually means "securing the box" (i.e., removing all script mappings, modules, etc that were not being actively used, securing the file ACLs, among other configuration changes). Yup, IIS was NEVER affected, therefore we were never hit. It still logs tons of hits per day from servers outside of the network as well.
It's funny that I think of the same thing when I see Apache servers that are running everything up to and including mod_YourMom... people need a lesson in security... it doesn't matter if it's IIS or Apache or NT or Linux or Joe's OS.... it makes no difference. Security holes exist in every OS and configuration... it's just the job of the astute sysadmin to make sure that the holes are plugged before the box goes into production use.
That MS NetMeeting + a good headset can't?
I believe Las Vegas is using junked Mark IV monorails that Disney World used back in the day. Remember the scene in that episode where the logo peels off and underneath it says "1964 World's Fair?" Yeah...
The problem with your scenario is that Microsoft is not giving people a choice. If you buy a computer from Dell, Compaq, etc. you pretty much have to buy Windows because that's the way MS's licensing practices work.
Riiiight. Look at the flipside. People who DON'T want Windows will probably be building their own computers (excluding laptops). Remember, for Dell, etc. to allow Linux, etc. on their list, those companies also have to support it, too. That means more training for the techs, and more loss for Dell, et. al. Not to mention that it won't sell well cause what does everyone and their grandma want? Windows. Enough about "MS licensing practices," will someone just freakin' admit that it's economically feasible to do what they do now?!?
MS has forced all other players out of the game. Perhaps its because of their superior products...
If this were indeed true as you state, what is exactly wrong with that? What, GM can't build superior cars nowadays? They have to make sure that Ford has an equal or better share of the business? Of course not!
You're a 900 lb gorilla, you've been acting like one, now we're going to treat you like one.
I think he drew the line when Bill Gates said "you know, I could have you killed if I really wanted to."
another item that also annoys me is XP configured to use time.windows.com as an ntp server. That should be a selectable option, or one that should be picked up from the dhcp server... but then I digress...
r entVersion\DateTime\Servers and then tell me you can't write a shell script to fix that! ;P Also, if you logon to a WinNT/2k domain I believe that time is synched to it. But you can run an internal NTP server and have that registry entry refreshed from a logon script.
Try checking HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur
The best part is at the end of the tutorial:
... it's just not on the Internet that it's allowed. Don't dog on details if you don't understand them.
Win2K uses DNS names that use the underscore character.
Never mind mentioning that this is specifically verbotten in the DNS RFC's..
That's probably in there for backwards compatibility with WINS... let's say you have a bunch of NT boxes named Jims_box, Daves_box and so on... those were legal in WINS but it would be hell in upgrading.
Novell allows the same thing... you can refer to servers like filesrv_1.foohost.bardomain
Let's say it didn't ship that way by default. That means that every corporate install of Windows 2000 would have to be manually configured to interoperate with its native servers. It's more of a conveinence to Win2k shops.
On the other hand, I'm surprised that this huge "Win2k DDOS attack" on "key internet infrastructure" has risen so suddenly, as these settings have existed since 1999 and Windows 2000 has done the same thing till then. What, did these machines suddenly come to life and grab the Internet by its balls?
That may be true, but you're missing the point... that the ideal location for many Win2k workstationss is behind a corporate firewall... so they would be contacting the internal DDNS server and not one on the outside.
You must be a Linux zealot, since you have no idea what your are talking about. This isn't a security hole. In fact, it's more of a feature. Windows 2000 differs from NT in that instead of using WINS for machine naming on the network, Win2k has transitioned to using Dynamic DNS instead of using the antiquated NetBIOS/WINS naming convention for local LANs. Now, these machines come set default for LANs with this modern config that are USING WINDOWS 2000 SERVER. The _default_ configuration is the one that will benefit the most people... those using Windows 2000 Pro on a Win2k LAN! Why on earth would/should it ship differently? Win2k networks most often go with Win2k servers! This problem only affects old-fashioned UNIX servers by improperly configured Windows 2000 clients that think they are connected to a W2K LAN. If you care to see why this is true, read this article.
No, the problem lies in stupid sysadmins NOT explicitly shutting it off. As for the connection settings, it is set up by default that way because if you are querying a Windows 2000 DNS/DHCP server, it supports DDNS (as per RFC 2136). It only causes problems with UNIX servers. Read this article for some detailed info about the issue. I assume it's a similar deal with the Macs.