Enter a well formed but bogus account / credit number,
Today I got one of these fraudulent "the bank needs your information" E-mails. So, I thought, let's give them some noise to fill their log.
But the credit card number I made up was detected as non-existent - or at least the fake website said so.
Now, is there any way to:
1) Generate fake credit card numbers that pass as "valid" 2) Do this, and be certain that no-one actually owns that particular number, and if so, still not get into trouble?
Flies have a 3-stage pipelined visual system that operates a 400 Hz (compared to human's 60 Hz system). They see the swatter and react more quickly than the human eye.
Why do Americans always assume the rest of the world goes by their standards?
The human visual system, as we Europeans all know very well, runs on 50 Hz here. But this is more than well compensated for by our higher count of rods and staffs.
This certainly won't quell the arguments from the creationists either as there just isn't enough evidence to prove that the "supreme being" didn't plan this all along...
What kind of evidence do you think would ever make the creationists silent? We are talking about people here whose argument is completely based upon the idea that the truthfulness of a several thousand years old text, written when superstition was even more rampant than today, and science was in its infancy, is completely unfallible.
What kind of evidence would they look at, and say "gosh, we were wrong all along - how could we believe this old hogwash!"?
This is why I go the "Linux first - Windows only if absolutely necessary" route when installing relatives' computers.
No virus problems. No spyware problems.
I believe the GNOME or KDE desktop is the perfect choice for absolutely computer illiterate relatives who want to surf the web, read mail and play the occasional game (my father even mentioned the best thing he liked about Linux was all the games - I didn't even knew they came with the installation!:).
Why? Because they can't screw something up that I can't easily fix. Because it is a rock stable solution for Web browsing and E-mail reading. Because it can be administered remotely easily over low bandwidth.
The only problem that may arise is when they need to run some special Microsoft Windows-only software that can't run in Wine.
So, yes, Linux definitely is for Grandma, although she hasn't bought a computer yet.:)
VI and EMACS don't cut it as admin tools, I'm not going to make the change by hand on all 500 servers.
That was mostly meant as a joke; I wouldn't count a text editor as a "management tool", even though there probably are some available for Emacs, and Emacs most certainly would be insulted by being called a mere "text editor".:)
How do I make a single change to the TCP configuration for all 500 servers.
If there are no webmin plugin for running such a command on a set of servers simultaneously, or a daemon for this kind of stuff, I'd use SSH key authentication combined with a shell script loop, something similar to this: (not syntax checked):
for i in `cat/tmp/serverlist` ; do ssh $i 'echo 3 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syn_retries' ; done
Now, for such an occasion, I agree that there could be nicer ways to accomplish this, and there probably is. I just haven't the time right now to look for it.:)
Can you use the same management tools work for both distros?
Yes. Both Emacs AND Vi works on both distros.:)
I might be wrong in guessing what you refer to with "management tools", but if you're talking configuration systems such as Webmin, then, yes, you can.
How about replicating config changes - does the same script work for both distros?
Depends on what kind of config changes you're referring to, and what you mean by "script". Of course, systems that already have been designed with replication in mind, like DNS and LDAP, and databases that support replication would work out-of-the-box, independent of what operating system the different machines ran.
Give me an example of what "config changes" you mean, and I'll tell you (if I know, that is) if they can be replicated between different distros.
Another good reason for successful integration between different Linux distros / other Open Source systems is that the whole concept never was about deliberately locking people in with proprietery, sometimes cunningly changed protocols and APIs, solely for profit reasons.
This is similar to a circular argument I've heard used before:
The Windows platform is a superior solution, because it integrates better (with a previously existing Windows-installation, that is.)
Better to not start down that road, and only in very, very special circumstances install Microsoft software at all.
We're talking about a company that from the beginning lied and deceived to get where they wanted. Explicitly coding software to break when used together with a competitor's software, to gain an advantage?
A Leopard Never Changes Its Spots. At least not this leopard. And by going for open standards and software designed to accomplish a job, not to lock in the customer, we may kill this leopard one day.:)
Because if someone takes control of the program via an exploit, they can't do as much harm if it doesn't run as root.
You follow this up later on with the mention of sandboxing and restricting access to even the user's files, but I'll mention it nevertheless, since I was reminded of it, and there are lots of advocates for Linux-like systems missing an important point when
they tell about the security advantages of "not running a browser/whatever as root"
It's important to consider that even if the damage done is "in the context" of the user alone, and not the supervisor, this helps little on single-user systems (as most home desktops are), since the user's own files are much more important than the operating system's.
So if someone uses a buffer overrun exploit, or you-name-it, against the user's browser, it's little help that the only data that was copied / deleted / changed was the user's private files.
there are equilibrium points that the brain will eventually find where it has greater control over its inputs. Assuming that flying too hight or too low creates a more chaotic state, you can likely expect the brain to learn to avoid it.
Do we know yet at what point "consciousness" gets into the picture, and whether that "chaotic state" may eventually be experienced as pain in a system complex enough?
Are there any researchers seriously considering these questions?
Re:Something is wrong here
on
Flying By Brain
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What scares me quite a bit about creating artificial neural networks, is how consciousness and the experience of pain comes into the equation.
Does any complex enough system have a consciousness, just as we do? Is that "equilibrium" the system is trying to accomplish experienced as something similar to a person trying to keep their balance on their feet? As a person trying to keep their body away from a surrounding fire?
What if there is a sharp feeling of discomfort in such an artificial system when its input parameters are not within "specifications" (plane flying level)?
Can the experience of pain / discomfort always be measured from outside? Should we continue creating artificial neural networks if we can't answer that question?
Then again - maybe I am being squeamish for no reason.
Certainly not. I think these questions should be seriously considered, since we may eventually (if we haven't already) be creating a real conscious being, perhaps with no way ever of telling the outside world that it experiences a constant feeling of pain....
After all, if your entire existence was flying imaginary planes, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
My point is that as long as we keep the clones somewhat small - say less than 1024 cells, I have no moral problem with disposing them - that I'm not killing anything. Yes this has a HUGE grey area, but I think that a reasonable compromise can be reached.
That has to be the nicest color illusion I've seen. I believe that the illusion is so good, that the only reason the dropper shows both squares being (170, 170,170) is that even the GIMP was fooled by the shadow.
There are very specific reasons people don't use it, X-windows being one of those big reasons.
If you had said that the lack of functionality in KDE or GNOME is one major reason people aren't brought over, I'd have understood what you meant (even though I wouldn't have agreed), but you seem to point out X as the culprit.
Would you mind being a bit more specific about why, as you claim, The X Window System is one of the "those big reasons" people don't use Linux on the desktop?
And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:
My firewall is an AMD K5 100, underclocked to 75 MHz since I have no cooling for the CPU. It has 16 MB of RAM, a 422 MB Quantum HDD, and is running Windows XP home edition - err - I mean GNU/Debian with kernel 2.4.26.:^)
On some rare occasion, it panics. This is only a problem when I'm out travelling and suddenly is cut off from my home network. Since the last time I've learned to enter
kernel/panic=120
into/etc/sysctl.conf.:)
The point is, that _this_ hardware (except for that odd flaw, or when I run Nessus) servers me _fine_ for my 10 Mbit Internet connection.
And propaganda is always bad, even if it's trying to be for a good cause.
I'm just curious, what exactly, is your definition of the word "propaganda"? I see a lot of suspicious (mis?)use of that particular word in several comments, and even in the blurb itself! (truth or propaganda)
The definition I found (and which I believe is correct, but not fully used here) is the following:
propaganda
n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some
cause
Surely we are not using the same definition of the word when you say that propaganda is always bad!
Since the diffrence can be detected with CRC or MD5, wouldn't that defeat the main purpose?
The main purpose is to send secret data, hidden in something that doesn't seem to contain such data.
If there's no "original" file to compare with, it'd be hard to detect the presence of the extra data. One could write a small application which seems innocent, but which only real purpose is to be used as a container for covert messages.
Sorry to be picky, but royal straight flushes come in four suits do they not?
You're right - I was thinking of a Royal Straight Flush in hearts, which I way back learned was the highest hand possible. The number of alien civilizations just went up fourfold!:^)
Speaking of which, who's to say that life has to develop differently elsewhere than it did for us?
Life has developed differently many times. Right here on Earth. For an interesting example, see the Movile Caves of Romania, where life seems to have been isolated for 500 million years.
This is not, of course, any proof that the cyanide-breathing aliens in my example could exist. Just a reminder that life can adapt to very different environments.
We are talking about a very fine tuned universe, and a lot of parameters that had to be set just right not just once but over a long period of time and repeatedly.
Yes, when we observe the universe, it does indeed seem fine-tuned to allow us to exist. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it! That's the idea of the Anthropic principle - The only universe we can come to exist in, and observe, is the universe that will be able, at some point in time, to host us.
Have you ever seen a perfectly round stone that was a product of a natural process?
Can't remember I've seen one. I would probably take the finding of a perfectly round stone as evidence that someone has purposefully polished it. However, I do not believe that complex life-forms such as ourselves, and the universe needed to support them are evidence of purpose or intelligent design.
On the other hand.... I have this idea, that we never will be able to know how and why the universe came into being. Also, I don't think the question of what matter and energy really is, have any meaning. We may find smaller and smaller bullding blocks of nature, and with those explain the presence of bigger building blocks - but at the lowest level, I don't think there is any answer to the question of what stuff is made of or why it's there.
So, bottom line, I can't say I know the universe didn't come into being by intelligent design. It is just not necessary for us to exist.
The odds of drawing a Royal Straight Flush in poker is one in 2,598,960.
But one in 2,598,960 also happens to be the odds of drawing any configuration of five cards. It is just that the Royal Straight Flush has more significance in the game, from the rules we created.
If we consider our existence to be significant, then we may believe ourselves and the world around us "designed" especially for us to exist.
Sentient creatures evolved on another world, breathing a cyanide atmosphere of 40 bars pressure, would probably at some point early in their evolution consider the rules "made up" especially for them, not themselves an evolutionary product of their environment.
The universe draws from a big stack of cards, and, at least once, life has come up. This, however, doesn't mean that the lucky combination is associated with a high score. It's just important to us, who happens to be that hand of cards.
Slashdot Mirror
Enter a well formed but bogus account / credit number,
Today I got one of these fraudulent "the bank needs your information" E-mails. So, I thought, let's give them some noise to fill their log.
But the credit card number I made up was detected as non-existent - or at least the fake website said so.
Now, is there any way to:
1) Generate fake credit card numbers that pass as "valid"
2) Do this, and be certain that no-one actually owns that particular number, and if so, still not get into trouble?
It would be funny, but it's rods and cones.
This is exactly my point! You take for granted that American standards applies everywhere else!
Once you've dissected an European eye and compared our 50 Hz color-correcting 64 bit staffs to your inferior 60 Hz cones, you'll want a pair yourself!
:)
Flies have a 3-stage pipelined visual system that operates a 400 Hz (compared to human's 60 Hz system). They see the swatter and react more quickly than the human eye.
Why do Americans always assume the rest of the world goes by their standards?
The human visual system, as we Europeans all know very well, runs on 50 Hz here. But this is more than well compensated for by our higher count of rods and staffs.
This certainly won't quell the arguments from the creationists either as there just isn't enough evidence to prove that the "supreme being" didn't plan this all along...
What kind of evidence do you think would ever make the creationists silent? We are talking about people here whose argument is completely based upon the idea that the truthfulness of a several thousand years old text, written when superstition was even more rampant than today, and science was in its infancy, is completely unfallible.
What kind of evidence would they look at, and say "gosh, we were wrong all along - how could we believe this old hogwash!"?
Nice!
:^)
But have you ever seen this lovely OS on an ATM? I _ran_ for the camera when I passed that one in Karlskrona.
This is why I go the "Linux first - Windows only if absolutely necessary" route when installing relatives' computers.
:).
:)
No virus problems. No spyware problems.
I believe the GNOME or KDE desktop is the perfect choice for absolutely computer illiterate relatives who want to surf the web, read mail and play the occasional game (my father even mentioned the best thing he liked about Linux was all the games - I didn't even knew they came with the installation!
Why? Because they can't screw something up that I can't easily fix. Because it is a rock stable solution for Web browsing and E-mail reading. Because it can be administered remotely easily over low bandwidth.
The only problem that may arise is when they need to run some special Microsoft Windows-only software that can't run in Wine.
So, yes, Linux definitely is for Grandma, although she hasn't bought a computer yet.
VI and EMACS don't cut it as admin tools, I'm not going to make the change by hand on all 500 servers.
:)
/tmp/serverlist` ; do ssh $i 'echo 3 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syn_retries' ; done
:)
That was mostly meant as a joke; I wouldn't count a text editor as a "management tool", even though there probably are some available for Emacs, and Emacs most certainly would be insulted by being called a mere "text editor".
How do I make a single change to the TCP configuration for all 500 servers.
If there are no webmin plugin for running such a command on a set of servers simultaneously, or a daemon for this kind of stuff, I'd use SSH key authentication combined with a shell script loop, something similar to this: (not syntax checked):
for i in `cat
Now, for such an occasion, I agree that there could be nicer ways to accomplish this, and there probably is. I just haven't the time right now to look for it.
Good point, though.
Can you use the same management tools work for both distros?
:)
Yes. Both Emacs AND Vi works on both distros.
I might be wrong in guessing what you refer to with "management tools", but if you're talking configuration systems such as Webmin, then, yes, you can.
How about replicating config changes - does the same script work for both distros?
Depends on what kind of config changes you're referring to, and what you mean by "script". Of course, systems that already have been designed with replication in mind, like DNS and LDAP, and databases that support replication would work out-of-the-box, independent of what operating system the different machines ran.
Give me an example of what "config changes" you mean, and I'll tell you (if I know, that is) if they can be replicated between different distros.
Another good reason for successful integration between different Linux distros / other Open Source systems is that the whole concept never was about deliberately locking people in with proprietery, sometimes cunningly changed protocols and APIs, solely for profit reasons.
This is similar to a circular argument I've heard used before:
:)
The Windows platform is a superior solution, because it integrates better (with a previously existing Windows-installation, that is.)
Better to not start down that road, and only in very, very special circumstances install Microsoft software at all.
We're talking about a company that from the beginning lied and deceived to get where they wanted. Explicitly coding software to break when used together with a competitor's software, to gain an advantage?
A Leopard Never Changes Its Spots. At least not this leopard. And by going for open standards and software designed to accomplish a job, not to lock in the customer, we may kill this leopard one day.
Because if someone takes control of the program via an exploit, they can't do as much harm if it doesn't run as root.
You follow this up later on with the mention of sandboxing and restricting access to even the user's files, but I'll mention it nevertheless, since I was reminded of it, and there are lots of advocates for Linux-like systems missing an important point when they tell about the security advantages of "not running a browser/whatever as root"
It's important to consider that even if the damage done is "in the context" of the user alone, and not the supervisor, this helps little on single-user systems (as most home desktops are), since the user's own files are much more important than the operating system's.
So if someone uses a buffer overrun exploit, or you-name-it, against the user's browser, it's little help that the only data that was copied / deleted / changed was the user's private files.
Neurons are no more "sacred" than any other cell type (spermatozoons, for example). In fact, millions of both are wasted every second.
How do you get any work done?
there are equilibrium points that the brain will eventually find where it has greater control over its inputs. Assuming that flying too hight or too low creates a more chaotic state, you can likely expect the brain to learn to avoid it.
Do we know yet at what point "consciousness" gets into the picture, and whether that "chaotic state" may eventually be experienced as pain in a system complex enough?
Are there any researchers seriously considering these questions?
What scares me quite a bit about creating artificial neural networks, is how consciousness and the experience of pain comes into the equation.
... or even boredom.
Does any complex enough system have a consciousness, just as we do? Is that "equilibrium" the system is trying to accomplish experienced as something similar to a person trying to keep their balance on their feet? As a person trying to keep their body away from a surrounding fire?
What if there is a sharp feeling of discomfort in such an artificial system when its input parameters are not within "specifications" (plane flying level)?
Can the experience of pain / discomfort always be measured from outside? Should we continue creating artificial neural networks if we can't answer that question?
Then again - maybe I am being squeamish for no reason.
Certainly not. I think these questions should be seriously considered, since we may eventually (if we haven't already) be creating a real conscious being, perhaps with no way ever of telling the outside world that it experiences a constant feeling of pain....
After all, if your entire existence was flying imaginary planes, maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
My point is that as long as we keep the clones somewhat small - say less than 1024 cells, I have no moral problem with disposing them - that I'm not killing anything. Yes this has a HUGE grey area, but I think that a reasonable compromise can be reached.
Don't forget that clones are people two.
That has to be the nicest color illusion I've seen. I believe that the illusion is so good, that the only reason the dropper shows both squares being (170, 170,170) is that even the GIMP was fooled by the shadow.
There are very specific reasons people don't use it, X-windows being one of those big reasons.
If you had said that the lack of functionality in KDE or GNOME is one major reason people aren't brought over, I'd have understood what you meant (even though I wouldn't have agreed), but you seem to point out X as the culprit.
Would you mind being a bit more specific about why, as you claim, The X Window System is one of the "those big reasons" people don't use Linux on the desktop?
And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:
http://www.flat-earth.org/
www.timecube.com
My firewall is an AMD K5 100, underclocked to 75 MHz since I have no cooling for the CPU. It has 16 MB of RAM, a 422 MB Quantum HDD, and is running Windows XP home edition - err - I mean GNU/Debian with kernel 2.4.26. :^)
/etc/sysctl.conf. :)
On some rare occasion, it panics. This is only a problem when I'm out travelling and suddenly is cut off from my home network. Since the last time I've learned to enter
kernel/panic=120
into
The point is, that _this_ hardware (except for that odd flaw, or when I run Nessus) servers me _fine_ for my 10 Mbit Internet connection.
And propaganda is always bad, even if it's trying to be for a good cause.
I'm just curious, what exactly, is your definition of the word "propaganda"? I see a lot of suspicious (mis?)use of that particular word in several comments, and even in the blurb itself! (truth or propaganda)
The definition I found (and which I believe is correct, but not fully used here) is the following:
propaganda
n : information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause
Surely we are not using the same definition of the word when you say that propaganda is always bad!
As for MPEG2, that's needed for back compatability, but as anyone who uses DivX knows, it's far less efficient than modern codecs.
I thought DivX gave nearly-as-good-quality (at much lower bitrate) as MPEG2, but not sufficient quality at higher bitrates, where MPEG2 excels.
In other words, DivX just can't beat MPEG2 in the area of high-quality encodes (DVDs). Has this changed, or was I wrong?
Since the diffrence can be detected with CRC or MD5, wouldn't that defeat the main purpose?
The main purpose is to send secret data, hidden in something that doesn't seem to contain such data.
If there's no "original" file to compare with, it'd be hard to detect the presence of the extra data. One could write a small application which seems innocent, but which only real purpose is to be used as a container for covert messages.
Instead, you should be securing your system to prevent password lists being downloaded and to prevent multiple subsequent incorrect logins.
My first reaction - then I thought of the possibility to sniff the network and thus gain access to the hashes.
I believe token systems such as Kerberos has a better solution, where the hashed password isn't sent over the network.
Sorry to be picky, but royal straight flushes come in four suits do they not?
:^)
You're right - I was thinking of a Royal Straight Flush in hearts, which I way back learned was the highest hand possible. The number of alien civilizations just went up fourfold!
Speaking of which, who's to say that life has to develop differently elsewhere than it did for us?
Life has developed differently many times. Right here on Earth. For an interesting example, see the Movile Caves of Romania, where life seems to have been isolated for 500 million years.
This is not, of course, any proof that the cyanide-breathing aliens in my example could exist. Just a reminder that life can adapt to very different environments.
We are talking about a very fine tuned universe, and a lot of parameters that had to be set just right not just once but over a long period of time and repeatedly.
Yes, when we observe the universe, it does indeed seem fine-tuned to allow us to exist. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it!
That's the idea of the Anthropic principle - The only universe we can come to exist in, and observe, is the universe that will be able, at some point in time, to host us.
Have you ever seen a perfectly round stone that was a product of a natural process?
Can't remember I've seen one. I would probably take the finding of a perfectly round stone as evidence that someone has purposefully polished it. However, I do not believe that complex life-forms such as ourselves, and the universe needed to support them are evidence of purpose or intelligent design.
On the other hand.... I have this idea, that we never will be able to know how and why the universe came into being. Also, I don't think the question of what matter and energy really is, have any meaning. We may find smaller and smaller bullding blocks of nature, and with those explain the presence of bigger building blocks - but at the lowest level, I don't think there is any answer to the question of what stuff is made of or why it's there.
So, bottom line, I can't say I know the universe didn't come into being by intelligent design. It is just not necessary for us to exist.
It's about significance.
The odds of drawing a Royal Straight Flush in poker is one in 2,598,960.
But one in 2,598,960 also happens to be the odds of drawing any configuration of five cards. It is just that the Royal Straight Flush has more significance in the game, from the rules we created.
If we consider our existence to be significant, then we may believe ourselves and the world around us "designed" especially for us to exist.
Sentient creatures evolved on another world, breathing a cyanide atmosphere of 40 bars pressure, would probably at some point early in their evolution consider the rules "made up" especially for them, not themselves an evolutionary product of their environment.
The universe draws from a big stack of cards, and, at least once, life has come up. This, however, doesn't mean that the lucky combination is associated with a high score. It's just important to us, who happens to be that hand of cards.