The technologies mentioned are, I think tremendously exciting! DWDM is something I've always thought of ever since I got into computer engineering; a natural use for fiber. And the electrical power line broadband --- this can truly extend broadband to the far reaches of the globe in areas where the power distribution system allows it.
But note the negative tone in the article - "Here are the technologies... that are coming to disrupt your business". Am I misunderstanding the meaning of "disrupt"?
I think there's something wrong if our business leaders are looking at technology advancements as problems. Adapt, you stupid sh*ts! Get off your lazy asses, hire competent people in the new fields, and make a fortune.
There was an article in the December 2002 issue of IEEE Spectrum ("Paving the Last Mile With Glass") that talked about phone companies struggling to match cable companies in offering services via fiber optic connections in homes. Same idea. The phone companies that adapt to this technology advanacement remain. The others ("oooh no, it's disruptive, I'm scared!") disappear.
As a kid I could always hear the flyback transformers in TVs and video screen. I could not tell you what the sound sounded like--it was not a high pitch. it was no pitch at all. But I could tell it was present.
Oh thank God you can hear that too, I'm not crazy! I hear it too, from any kind of CRT and to me it does sound like a high pitched beep. I also hear it from the transformers in cameras when their flashes charge up.
But many people haven't brought this up - there is a LOT OF JUNK in the noise we are subjected to in life. There are lots of frequencies missing, added, and waveforms are definitely screwed up. Sound bounces off things and it causes a little damage, adds some delay, etc. There's diffraction of sound waves too. And noise is added to everything.
So you can imagine what kind of abuse a fancy voice or whatever audio waveform is subjected to by the time it is recorded, digitized, reproduced, and thrown through the air at you and into your ear. I hardly think that further digital processing we do on it is that significant.
You are going to do your ears a much greater favour by simply turning down the volume when you listen to music, and remembering to bring ear plugs to loud parties and concerts.
This gentleman presents an interesting hypothesis but provides no evidence, research or testing. And I become very suspicious when I see a "scientific" document laid out like this.
Reading through this document I found (1) background information on lossy acoustic compression, (2) brief biology lesson on the inner workings of the ear, and (3) a couple paragraphs beneath the diagrams that nicely explains why this lossy compression works.
Then there's a big jump:
From the view of neuronomy it is therefore to classify... at least as very precarious that a wider and wider spreading audio transmission technology for data reduction just systematically removes those spectral sound portions at the auditory threshold... because so the signal for their self calibration is missing, whereby at longer term a maladjustment of the hearing processor fields can threaten.
There's no why presented. His claim is (read it yourself): because frequencies from the original signal are being removed, the ear has calibration trouble and this causes hearing damage.
He could have stated that in one sentence. I'm suspicious because there is a lot of background info used to pad a claim without evidence, and I think it's a trick. That background information is not research or evidence. There is no research or evidence here.
I think this guy's concern is for religious reasons (see his web page) that we are all going to be affected by tainted audio in all sorts of digital broadcasts, while he prefers uncompressed signals.
Here is (good?) news: whenever audio passes through any transmission channel it is permanently modified. Standard digitization itself is very damaging, and the process involves much filtering and adulteration of original frequencies.
Sure, I know they're a business. But they're going out of their way to support linux and that's something I'm not ashamed to support. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours as they say.
$ host -t NS kernel.org
kernel.org name server ns2.transmeta.com
kernel.org name server zenii.linux.org.uk
kernel.org name server ns.vger.kernel.org
kernel.org name server ns1.kernel.org
kernel.org name server ns1.transmeta.com
kernel.org name server ns2.kernel.org
Yet another publicly sponsored Denial Of Service attack by slashdot.
I don't know if it's just a denial of service. The nameservers for ebayupdates.com are pointing to DNS servers that refuse to accept requests for the domain. i.e. it looks like their ISP killed them.
Remote logging exists right now
on
SDSC Secure Syslog
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Set up a locked down host on your network (no services running) except for syslogd. Then other hosts can use remote logging to log to this host. In case of even a widespread system compromise, your locked down logging host is completely safe and your logs can be obtained through console login.
See section "SUPPORT FOR REMOTE LOGGING" in man syslogd.
It was fixed in 2.4.20-rc2, see the "[PATCH] Fix lcall DoS..."
That's excellent news, thanks! For those that don't know, this vulnerability allows any user to crash the kernel in an instant (no fork bomb necessary) -- system dead. Since they've fixed this, I can see that as a very good reason for upgrading.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but I found no reference to this ptrace vulnerability in the changelog. I suspect this is still a problem (it was in 2.4.19).
In the following file you will find listed the IP addresses for all root servers. In case all DNS goes to hell, you can use this to look up any host name, be it COM/NET/ORG, any country, etc.
(voice of idiot television news anchor) It turns out that people like their music and want to share it with others. We'll tell you why that's pissing off companies, at 11.
Slackware 8.1 was released this past summer, so I'm wondering whether its tcpdump-3.7.1-i386-2 is infected.
Can anybody tell me whether checking for "mars", "mash" etc. in the output from "strings tcpdump" or "strings libpcap.a" is sufficient to show evidence of the trojan?
OK, true, these modern optical mice don't use simple phototransistors but my guess is that they use devices based on semiconductors that behave like phototransistors.
Silicon phototransistors are most sensitive to near-infrared light. The closest visible frequency to this is red, which may explain why you see red LEDs a lot in photosensitive equipment.
That in mind, you may "see" (ha ha) good results using an infrared LED.
Message classification would get less accurate on just the headers or headers+top of message
Does POPFile do any caching of messages? If it does, then it might actually be worth RETRieveing the whole message even when the client sends just a TOP, presumably because they will want a RETR later anyway. But yeah, this gets a bit weird!
In my testing (over the last 30 mins) I discovered that filtering is employed when the POP3 "RETR" (retrieve entire message) command is used but no filtering is done when the equally useful "TOP" (show me the headers and X lines of the body) command is issued by a client.
A huge advantage of also doing the filtering for the TOP command would be that mail clients such as The Bat, Pimmy,
JBMail
and PocoMail will let you preview all headers while leaving mail on the server (or deleting it, whatever) but without actually downloading the full message bodies.
And I'm going to check it out right now:) But one long standing I fear with such solutions is spammer's adapting to new environments (changing wording used, making the emails look more professional). Sure, they're dumb shits but they're still humans with brains.
Criticism: By giving smaller routers the power to command the behaviour of larger routers upstream, you are dangerously opening up a loophole that could allow someone in control of a router to maliciously affect upstream behaviour (potentially a huge scope!).
Improvement: Only allow routers to pushback/command up one or two hops to limit the scope of potential reverse-DoS attacks.
Easy testing: This doesn't refer to the above issue, but still... have AT&T set up a test site running their BSD implementation and then post a story to slashdot to have us test it out:)
Perhaps, instead of trying to complicate our lives with Yet Another New Protocol, you could simply come up with and IDS concatonation system, that puts together 'lists' of known DDOS sources at the current moment, and put it into a BGP feed... What a concept! Taking 2 technolgies that are known to work, and available to ANYONE that does BGP on the internet, and making it work!
This kind of reminds me of DShield. And I think you're right, if we could automate such an internet-wide distribute of potential DDoS participant hosts then when an attack begins, the victim could invoke "the blacklist" and hopefully cut out a big chunk of the sources.
The article hits the nail on the head: if you can see it, you can copy it. Please note that the recording industry thinks they can change this sort of thing, by requiring all analog to digital converts (ADCs) to respect some sort of digital protection. Those dumb shits...:)
I received some copies of the virus so I was able to get a good look at its headers and formatting. The worm does use the "audio/x-midi" MIME type to try and trick Internet Explorer/Outlook into automatically executing the file. It also has a double extension to hide the executable one from users.
But in any case, the attached file is an executable program. Using ANY email client, if you save the attachment to disk and then run it, you're going to get infected. So it's clearly not limited to MS Outlook.
The article uses the example of a web crawler that uses a simple match of keywords to identify copyrighted material. But it's not the web crawler itself that's the problem... the problem is that the people who are running the operation are unwilling to invest the time and resources to (1) improve their software, and (2) verify results by human experts.
Like so many other things, it comes down to human laziness and apathy. We use automated systems to help generate solutions to problems in science and engineering... but all results are verified by intelligent people before they are put to real use. Software and other automation tricks are used to HELP people decide, not to replace people in the decision process.
Slashdot Mirror
The technologies mentioned are, I think tremendously exciting! DWDM is something I've always thought of ever since I got into computer engineering; a natural use for fiber. And the electrical power line broadband --- this can truly extend broadband to the far reaches of the globe in areas where the power distribution system allows it.
But note the negative tone in the article - "Here are the technologies ... that are coming to disrupt your business". Am I misunderstanding the meaning of "disrupt"?
I think there's something wrong if our business leaders are looking at technology advancements as problems. Adapt, you stupid sh*ts! Get off your lazy asses, hire competent people in the new fields, and make a fortune.
There was an article in the December 2002 issue of IEEE Spectrum ("Paving the Last Mile With Glass") that talked about phone companies struggling to match cable companies in offering services via fiber optic connections in homes. Same idea. The phone companies that adapt to this technology advanacement remain. The others ("oooh no, it's disruptive, I'm scared!") disappear.
Oh thank God you can hear that too, I'm not crazy! I hear it too, from any kind of CRT and to me it does sound like a high pitched beep. I also hear it from the transformers in cameras when their flashes charge up.
But many people haven't brought this up - there is a LOT OF JUNK in the noise we are subjected to in life. There are lots of frequencies missing, added, and waveforms are definitely screwed up. Sound bounces off things and it causes a little damage, adds some delay, etc. There's diffraction of sound waves too. And noise is added to everything.
So you can imagine what kind of abuse a fancy voice or whatever audio waveform is subjected to by the time it is recorded, digitized, reproduced, and thrown through the air at you and into your ear. I hardly think that further digital processing we do on it is that significant.
You are going to do your ears a much greater favour by simply turning down the volume when you listen to music, and remembering to bring ear plugs to loud parties and concerts.
This gentleman presents an interesting hypothesis but provides no evidence, research or testing. And I become very suspicious when I see a "scientific" document laid out like this.
Reading through this document I found (1) background information on lossy acoustic compression, (2) brief biology lesson on the inner workings of the ear, and (3) a couple paragraphs beneath the diagrams that nicely explains why this lossy compression works.
Then there's a big jump:
There's no why presented. His claim is (read it yourself): because frequencies from the original signal are being removed, the ear has calibration trouble and this causes hearing damage.
He could have stated that in one sentence. I'm suspicious because there is a lot of background info used to pad a claim without evidence, and I think it's a trick. That background information is not research or evidence. There is no research or evidence here.
I think this guy's concern is for religious reasons (see his web page) that we are all going to be affected by tainted audio in all sorts of digital broadcasts, while he prefers uncompressed signals.
Here is (good?) news: whenever audio passes through any transmission channel it is permanently modified. Standard digitization itself is very damaging, and the process involves much filtering and adulteration of original frequencies.
Sure, I know they're a business. But they're going out of their way to support linux and that's something I'm not ashamed to support. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours as they say.
$ host -t NS kernel.orgkernel.org name server ns2.transmeta.com
kernel.org name server zenii.linux.org.uk
kernel.org name server ns.vger.kernel.org
kernel.org name server ns1.kernel.org
kernel.org name server ns1.transmeta.com
kernel.org name server ns2.kernel.org
Yet another publicly sponsored Denial Of Service attack by slashdot.
I don't know if it's just a denial of service. The nameservers for ebayupdates.com are pointing to DNS servers that refuse to accept requests for the domain. i.e. it looks like their ISP killed them.
Set up a locked down host on your network (no services running) except for syslogd. Then other hosts can use remote logging to log to this host. In case of even a widespread system compromise, your locked down logging host is completely safe and your logs can be obtained through console login.
See section "SUPPORT FOR REMOTE LOGGING" in man syslogd.
I haven't tried it myself yet, but I found no reference to this ptrace vulnerability in the changelog. I suspect this is still a problem (it was in 2.4.19).
In the following file you will find listed the IP addresses for all root servers. In case all DNS goes to hell, you can use this to look up any host name, be it COM/NET/ORG, any country, etc.
ftp://rs.internic.net/domain/root.zone.gz(voice of idiot television news anchor) It turns out that people like their music and want to share it with others. We'll tell you why that's pissing off companies, at 11.
I usually try not to sound insulting, but come on... if you're still using Internet Explorer then you are honestly being stupid.
Try Mozilla or one of its derivitives, my favourite is Phoenix. Another fine piece of software, independant of both IE and Mozilla is Opera.
Slackware 8.1 was released this past summer, so I'm wondering whether its tcpdump-3.7.1-i386-2 is infected.
Can anybody tell me whether checking for "mars", "mash" etc. in the output from "strings tcpdump" or "strings libpcap.a" is sufficient to show evidence of the trojan?
Well said.
Check out my home. "It's just temporary, I swear!"
OK, true, these modern optical mice don't use simple phototransistors but my guess is that they use devices based on semiconductors that behave like phototransistors.
Silicon phototransistors are most sensitive to near-infrared light. The closest visible frequency to this is red, which may explain why you see red LEDs a lot in photosensitive equipment.
That in mind, you may "see" (ha ha) good results using an infrared LED.
Does POPFile do any caching of messages? If it does, then it might actually be worth RETRieveing the whole message even when the client sends just a TOP, presumably because they will want a RETR later anyway. But yeah, this gets a bit weird!
In my testing (over the last 30 mins) I discovered that filtering is employed when the POP3 "RETR" (retrieve entire message) command is used but no filtering is done when the equally useful "TOP" (show me the headers and X lines of the body) command is issued by a client.
A huge advantage of also doing the filtering for the TOP command would be that mail clients such as The Bat, Pimmy, JBMail and PocoMail will let you preview all headers while leaving mail on the server (or deleting it, whatever) but without actually downloading the full message bodies.
And I'm going to check it out right now :) But one long standing I fear with such solutions is spammer's adapting to new environments (changing wording used, making the emails look more professional). Sure, they're dumb shits but they're still humans with brains.
... except the gun can be used to kill, or at least severely hurt, people :(
- "Point it at the thing you want to kill"Criticism: By giving smaller routers the power to command the behaviour of larger routers upstream, you are dangerously opening up a loophole that could allow someone in control of a router to maliciously affect upstream behaviour (potentially a huge scope!).
Improvement: Only allow routers to pushback/command up one or two hops to limit the scope of potential reverse-DoS attacks.
Easy testing: This doesn't refer to the above issue, but still... have AT&T set up a test site running their BSD implementation and then post a story to slashdot to have us test it out :)
This kind of reminds me of DShield. And I think you're right, if we could automate such an internet-wide distribute of potential DDoS participant hosts then when an attack begins, the victim could invoke "the blacklist" and hopefully cut out a big chunk of the sources.
The article hits the nail on the head: if you can see it, you can copy it. Please note that the recording industry thinks they can change this sort of thing, by requiring all analog to digital converts (ADCs) to respect some sort of digital protection. Those dumb shits... :)
I received some copies of the virus so I was able to get a good look at its headers and formatting. The worm does use the "audio/x-midi" MIME type to try and trick Internet Explorer/Outlook into automatically executing the file. It also has a double extension to hide the executable one from users.
But in any case, the attached file is an executable program. Using ANY email client, if you save the attachment to disk and then run it, you're going to get infected. So it's clearly not limited to MS Outlook.
The article uses the example of a web crawler that uses a simple match of keywords to identify copyrighted material. But it's not the web crawler itself that's the problem... the problem is that the people who are running the operation are unwilling to invest the time and resources to (1) improve their software, and (2) verify results by human experts.
Like so many other things, it comes down to human laziness and apathy. We use automated systems to help generate solutions to problems in science and engineering... but all results are verified by intelligent people before they are put to real use. Software and other automation tricks are used to HELP people decide, not to replace people in the decision process.