As I understand it, and I could be wrong, there are effectively four varients of Tivo, possibly five. The first is off-air Tivo. Generally what you are looking for, though I am not the one to describe where to find one.
Next up is Cable-Box Tivo. This is a Tivo recorder that also stands in as a Cable-Box. You may find this at your local BestBuy, or through your local Cable provider.
The next one or two are DirecTV and Dish Tivo recorders. They have one or two sattelite decoders built into the system. Unless the FCC or FTC comes down against the merger, these two variations will either be replaced by an equivalent product, or be upgraded to being the same product. This is why I have not broken the seals on my box yet. I figure one of two things will happen, My Tivo will be replaced, and I can hack the replacement box, my Tivo will not be replaced, and I will be able to hack my box with an added/very large hard drive.
The last variation that may not exist is a C-band 4DTV reciever/recorder.
I was about to say that using the eXit button in the upper right corner was safe, but then I remembered the execute on exit popups that were popular about a year ago....
Actually a slightly different purpose here. Project Gutenberg (PG) is oriented around putting public domain books into electronic form. Considering that the timeframe to put a book into the public domain these days exceeds the age at which ISBN's are applicable, it would be a little bit out of their leauge.
The other side of this is that for older books that have value based upon their age, if the book is in PG, someone who owns the book may feel it's value will be better retained if they read the electronic edition from PG, rather than the paper copy they possess.
Hmm. One other feature of a personal bookdb program would be to be able to keep track of the replacement value, and current condition of the books you own. This may have insurance value if you maintain a paper report with your insurance agent.
It might also be usefull to build this into a "domestic property" database, where you would record artwork, craft work, and other property. Generally this will be a much smaller collection of items, but may have a greater general value. I generally won't buy a book for over $100, but if I felt the quality was there, might be comfortable paying over $300 for a piece of art.
This could also work for any collectable, such as comic books or baseball cards.
Obviously baseball cards, artwork, etc won't have ISBN, DD, or LOCBNs, so the keys for these databases would have to be otherwise assigned.
I almost hate to suggest this, but you might consider making this a sourceforge or Savanah project. The advantage of this is that your code starts as the root of the project. Features can be added, such as a borrowed to and when, book reviews, ratings, target age group. Also if the code is sufficiently portable, which I don't know if cold fusion apps are, it could be made available in a number of languages.
Part of the long term project would be to share the data that each user has, either through a central repository, as cddb/freedb do, or through a distributed repository.
It would be nice if the repository were independantly searchable and browsable, as you could then find out that your co-worker, or friend in your local 0097 club has a copy of that $90 book on cryptography you need for a project you just got involved in, and perhaps can ask either through the program, or via e-mail if you could borrow it vs. buying it, or even if they have already loaned it to someone. That would require a friend/co-worker feature.
One feature might be a cross-conversion utility that would convert from ISBN to LOCBN and or DD and vice versa. If your local public library is online, you could cross-reference their catalog for books as well.
I think there are several different levels of personal data, which it makes sense to have different levels of security against.
The lowest level of security would be unauthenticated attribution. i.e. someone quoting something I have written. You don't know if the quote is accurate, or even what the context is, so it would make as much sense for you to rely upon it as it would for me to encapsulate it in a gpg signature. One example would be a blog. While it is reasonable to assume that what you find in a blog is from the person attributed, it is rare indeed to find one gpg signed.
Next up would be "for the record" personal data. This is data such as public keys, and personal data that I want publicly known. In this case the data should be stored in a manner that self corrects. gpg signing is only part of the solution, distributed storage similar to a raid5 storage of data across many disperse web servers, such that removing one server does not remove any data, and removing up to a fifth or potentially more of the servers would not prevent accurate data reconstruction, could be appropriate.
From here we move into data that we do not want generally available, but may want to make available to specific people or groups of people. Examples include a wife making a grocery list available to her husband, my employer needing my home address, ssn, and bank account number (to insure that I am insurable, collect taxes, and pay me by direct deposit/debit, respectively.)
Next up is data that I may want to maintain so that I can work with it as part of work, hobbies, or other things, that I do not think needs to be generally available, but would not be bothered if it were public knowledge. Raw un-filtered data, parts lists, etc.
Then comes things like rough drafts of works I would like to publish, or incremental evaluations of results that are not complete. I don't know of an author around that wants to discover the second draft of their most recent book out on the internet. It could even cause them to be in violation of a publishing contract. Likewise research materials, general e-mail, personal diaries (not blogs) or journals. At this level you might find people questioning whether it is necessary to back up this data.
The last level is for information that would be more expensive to be public than destroyed. Bank card PINs, Passwords, Private Keys, Love notes. At this level it may make sense to keep the specific data on a USB storage fob chained to your wrist, or secured by a program that maintains it's encryption key on such a device.
I am aware of some people who would maintain that all data that you do not want to be publicly available should be encrypted. For a lot of people maintaining an encrypting infrastructure is beyond them. You or I might think it trivial to set up an encrypted file storage area using gpg, rsa, or mandrake, but then I doubt that my dad would be able to do so.
Worse, the best known examples of private/secure local storage are easily broken into. For example you can encrypt documents, outlook.pst folders, and the like, only to discover that for $19.99 you can break into any of these files. (Even less if you can find and compile the code to break into these files yourself.)
Until real security is made easily usable, and businesses and people begin to understand that just because they want to know something does not mean that they should be given or be able to purchase that piece of information, I think we are going to ultimately see more companies desiring to archive, and make public or available for purchase addresses for stars, embarasing gaffs of politicians, and people being fired for actions they unwittingly participated in before the rules saying that those actions are cause for termination are created.
Is this with vmware or in the case of Windows on Linux Wine?
My recolleciton on OS/2 is that while you could write an application that would kill the OS, it was exceedingly unusual for an application that was not deliberatly written that way to do so.
If you chose to run a win3.x app under OS/2, not a win32s, or win32 under Odin, the environment that it ran in looked to the application like a Windows 3.x evironment running on top of PC-Dos.
OS/2 segmented processor cycles, and memory space so that the Windows application could not access memory or cpu outside of what had been allocated. It then ran version of Dos in that space, launching Windows from that instance of Dos.
Since I have not been working with OS/2 for a while, I don't recall any applications it was necessary for, but you could even run seprate instances of Windows, running two applications that would not run at the same time under plane windows.
Obviously there is no such thing as a perfect world. If you want to cut and paste between windows, you will have to have some mechanism for moving data in and out of virtual sessions. Likewise for Drag and Drop, Printing, Network Access, and other fetures.
How well VPC/2 works in those areas, while keeping the sessions separate, is dependent upon the developer as much as it is the OS.
With NT, Microsoft chose to make all legacy applications requiring win16 capabilities run in the same space. If you have two mutually exclusive applications that require win16 capabilities, only one can be run at a time. I would suspect that VMWare does change that, but most people will not buy VMWare for that capability. The ability to run Linux perhaps, but that's a different group.
Again, I personally suspect that if an app crashes Windows under VPC/2, I don't expect it to crash the OS.
I base that opinion on my experience with OS/2 being very capable of dealing with applications that try to access memory or processes outside of what OS/2 allows for.
But I could be wrong, and I have too many other things to do these days to get too concerned one way or the other right now.
Windows itself may crash. Possibly VPC/2 will crash. YOu will be back at your OS/2 desktop, and you simply restart VPC/2, Windows in VPC/2, and reload your application (after the checkdisk required by an unclean shutdown of the windows code completes) You will probably loose any unsaved data, andy may loose additional data by virtue of Windows self corrupting nature.
It is unlikely to affect the OS/2 platform in any way.
Then again, perhaps the PC will go up in a puff of smoke, and the data on the network drive across the country, and all copies of that data on backup storage media stored off site will all go away.
Well, perhaps as a product directly available from IBM, or retail chains, but you can still get OS/2 under it's new name e-com station, from the people woh convinced IBM that it would be a good idea to continue selling it even if IBM wasn't the marketing force behind it.
That company is Serenity Systems, http://www.serenity-systems.com
Whether or not you or I consider it to be a viable product is not really relevent. If Serenity Systems can survive on it, then for them it is a viable product.
BeOS is the only PC based OS that I have used that has handled threads as well as OS/2 does. This is coming from a user running Linux for the most part now. Your own experience may vary. And if you have political arguments against OS/2, BeOS, et all, because they were proprietary OS's, that's fine. That is one of the main reasons I have converted almost completely to Linux. In my own opinion, proprietary does not necesarily mean does nothing right. But you may take that position if you choose.
Then again this in my opinion. I get the option of being wrong.
The version numbering is on the distribution package, not the OS. Linux users generally recognize that the Kernel is the OS, not the collection of packages that sit on top of the kernel, or even the collection of modules that get plugged into the kernel.
A distribution such as Debian, Redhat, Mandrake, SUSE, Slackware, or any of the dozens or even hundreds of others in existence are a combination of one or more kernels, with a collection of software that sits on top of the kernel to make a potentially useful collection of software for users or server administrators.
What that collection consists of will depend upon the maintainer of that package.
The User Interface may be anything from terminal interfaces such as supporting vt100's attached to serial ports, through complete desktop interfaces consisting of Gnome, KDE, BlackBox, WindowMaker, or other Window Managers riding on X, or any other Windowing system that the package maintainer chooses to use.
There are efforts to port the BeOS ApplicationServer interface to run on the Linux 2.4 kernel. The collection of software that runs under such a port would generally be different from that which will run on a Mandrake distribution using X11r4.x, with a KDE or Gnome window manager.
Likewise if someone really likes the BeOS interface that has been ported to Linux, but does not like the Linux 2.4 kernel for some reason, they are welcome to port it to a BSD, or Hurd varient kernel, or whatever kernel they choose to use.
Just because the latest version of some software may be available from some official web site does not mean that that version will play well with the collection of software you already have on your system. A package is a collection that the people distributing that package included it in the distribution was found to work at a satisfactory level with the other software included in the distribution.
These decisions are far from perfect, and users are generally considered welcome to roll their own distribution by building a boot/root disk and downloading and compiling from source, the software that is available from the official web sites.
Another reason that people chose to use packages is that the developer can indicate in the package what software is required to make this software work, as well as providing recomendations as to what software and documentation might be handy to have around when installing, setting up, and using the software in the package.
If an individual was required to review the offical web site for every package to verify that they had all the required or recomended software, it is unlikely that more than a handful of people would have a system running at all.
On top of this as the "latest version" that is not in a package is generally considered to be bleeding edge software, is is probable that the system would be continuously in a very unstable state.
Then again, if you choose to build and run your system with the latest version of everything, that's your choice and I happen to think that you deserve the respect you will get for a stable system, or the lack of respect you might get from an unstable system.
Like anyone else does so? Mandrake 8.2, RedHat 7.2,...
Release numbers for packaging distributions are, and should be numbered by the people maintaining the distribution, to reflect their own perception of whether the release is a major, or minor improvement over the previous release.
For Linus and co, the enhancements to the kernel that moved it from 2.2 to 2.4, were minor changes, things like adding USB support, do not warrent a major version number. If the scheduler or virtual memory manager gets a major improvement, that would probably warrent a version 3.0, or so.
With Debian, the kernel is not the only thing that gets improved by moving from potato to woody. Updates to the user interfaces; Gnome and KDE; many packages, OpenOffice, ssh, and others; as well as the improvements to the kernel, moving from 2.2 to 2.4; suggest that this will be a Major improvement to the Debian Distribution.
Then again, they may be looking at other distribution version numbers and thinking that the public will percieve Debian 2.4 to be less "market" friendly than Debian 3.0.
After all, I wasn't in on the decision to version the software, and these are only my opinions. I could be wrong.
Before I get started, I am not a fan of Microsoft, I don't expect to be asked to present evidence in trial, and I am not an expert at either software design, or the windows source code.
Let's just take Windows Media Player as an example. It is designed to do two things. Work with Audio, and work with Video. Let's say I am working on the component that plays audio. For some reason every time I go to play a sample audio file, the system bogs down and there is a three second delay in playback. To see if the problem is the system calls to load the file, or the system call to actually manipulate the audio out, I decide to write a new interface to audio out. With the new interface to audio out, playback improves tremendously. So I save it as a DLL, and go on with my work. That DLL is part of the Windows Media Player.
Someone over in the OS division trying to optimize the OS to perform better finds out that there is a sound module in the Windows Media Player that performs better than the equivalent module that has been in Windows since 3.0, and says to himself "The new module is smaller, faster, and really does the job better. Let's just redirect system calls to play sounds to that module."
So now the OS requires Windows Media Player to play audio files. Taking Windows Media Player out of the system would require either building a new audio out module, or re-using the old audio out module. Since an audio out module does already exist, MS can rightfully note that the system would be slowed down by pulling WMP out of the OS, and since the old audio out was slower, (and possibly buggier) it would be harder to support.
This can be extrapolated across the rest of the Windows platform for WMP and IE. IE requires access to the TCP/IP stack. Parts of that are not as clean as they could be, so the IE team re-writes those parts in a DLL of their own, and the OS team starts using those calls instead of the original calls.
WMP needs faster access to the screen for video, so writes their own interface. That interface starts getting used by IE for output of their page rendering, and Notepad uses the IE page rendering code so that output to the screen is faster.
As a result of code re-use, windows is smaller than it would have to be without the re-used code. Which is the real intention of using DLL's in the first place. Yet as a result of the various DLLs belonging to IE and WMP, IE and WMP become core parts of the OS, and removing them becomes nearly imposible. Sure you can remove the executable for IE and WMP, but that's a program that calls initialization code from one of the libraries and waits for the library to report that the application is done. All of the actual application is in the DLLs.
If you ask a hundred different developers if this is a good idea for development, you will probably get a nice spectrum of yes and no resposnes with qualifications to those responses.
In the Open Software development world, if you find a faster way to play an audio file, you feed that code into the development tree for the Audio playback toolkit. If your code or patch is adopted, great, if part of it is, and the entire system performs better, that's great too. But the entire OS does not become dependent upon the application you were developing at the time you wrote the improved code. That code could even be use in an entirely different OS kernel.
I happen to like the latter development model better, but I am not in the process of developing a system that is designed to keep others out of what I percieve as my market.
I was under the impression that the original attack on the towers, the attempt to blow up a support column was intended to cause one tower to colapse onto another tower, causing a chain reaction (domino effect) knocking down other towers and buildings near these two.
I am not sure if the people who planed the flights into the two buildings expected the buildings to collapse verticaly, or topple. If they expected the buildings to topple as the result of driving that much mass into the sides, then the construction methods used defeated the attackers intent.
I would be seriously surprised if they attackers expected the towers to effectively implode.
And subsequent reads. (no waiting for the disk head to seak the next cylinder half way across the drive.
Of course this is only really applicable to single user low volume read/write applications.
The true goal of Journaling is still to reduce the recovery time for a power failure. In a highly interactive multi-concurrent-user system, Journaling will have an impact on the responsiveness of the hard drive.
Using a 60bps channel to send a 3600bit key would take one minute. Encrypt the data to be sent via conventional high bandwidth transmition with that 3600bit key for one minute, meanwhile send another 3600bit key via the 60bps channel. Or if 3600 bits is not secure enough for you, use an even larger key, sent over a longer period of time.
Alternatively, send a 60 bit key every second for a 8092 bit key embeded in the high bandwidth data stream, use the 8092 bit key to decrypt the next second's block of data.
The important part is to understand that only the sender and the recipient have the keys. As I understand it the process itself is generating non-crackable keys.
In the hidden partition you can only get to by opening a web browser and pointing at www.tucows.com, they include a couple of e-mail clients that are provided at no additional cost....
They have also included several added fee products under other licences. They do not recover those fees themselves, and the licences have different restrictions and allowances, so your milage may vary.
Then again, you probably knew that and were just trying to get someone's goat.
There are a few workarounds to the problem of devices that you do not wish to handle your traffic doing so.
I have seen tunneling via ip-ip, ssh, and other ipv4 protocols mentioned, however there is another option available, and that is to tunnel your traffic as ipv6 traffic over ipv4.
It does take a bit of time to set up, but if you can find an agreable ipv6 network provider to allow you to tunnel to their server, your traffic will not be handled by any transparent proxy server at your local ISP, regardless of the type of traffic that you are working with.
I am not sure how complete the ipv6 implementation for Windows is yet, or, depending upon which version of Windows you may be running, if it is even an option, but for users working with Linux and BSD, this should not be a significant issue.
It's not the gun that is specifically affected, it is a combination of the mask in the front of the monitor, and the alignment magnets on the back of the tube being affected.
You can see the effect of gausing while the monitor is on, or the affect after you turn it on.
Not really sure, but most of the spam filters I have encountered on smtp servers, only check the ip address and host name of the device that is sending the message to it against the BlackHoleList, or another service like that. In some intstances it may be checking From id's againast a list of known spammers, however I think it is reasonable to assume that is not usefull.
Potentially a good way of checking via headers would be to see if a high volume of messages are comming in with the same message-id. However that possibility would affect valid opt-in lists or mail distribution lists if there are a lot of local users participating.
Another method might be to validate that the message-id is reasonably valid. I seem to recall that a valid message-id consists of a hash of the fully qualified host name, and date-time-sequence number for the message. If the hash of the fully qualified host name does not come back to the originating server for the message, or the date-time-sequence number is not valid, discard the message. However that is a lot of logic to build into a spam filter. So I suspect it is a rare filter that contains that capability.
Then again, I could be worng. These are my thoughts, and I claim no expertise.
Well, while I may be a total moron, I have to admit that I do not see any argument in what you have posted that indicates what exactly you belive that 1) implies that Apple Remote Desktop does "so much more" than VNC, and 2) recomends that any non-corporate user has any need to spend $500 for it.
If I am a flaming idiot, what does that make the person trying to flame me?
Three or four questions... How large of an meteorite would be needed to make a cow go splat? (I would suspect that it would need to be more than half the volume of the cow, otherwise the cow would probably just collapse with a jet of energy blowing it's legs out from under it...
How much kinnetic energy would be in the meteorite that large?
How close would you want to be to make that observation? Personally I would suspect that a netcam wouldn't provide enough resolution and would be destroyed long before any useful information could be sent from it. Kind of like those videos they like to show of a nuclear explosion, where nothing but commentary is happening, and suddenly you see static.
Though a baseball sized meteorite would provide enought of a show for me, though I would like to have a good sized piece of realestate between me and the cow....
Then again, I could be wrong. I'm sure someone will think I am....:-)
This is exactly the problem that Diffey and Hellman solved by creating the public key/private key pair encryption/decryption scheme.
The general idea is that you encrypt a message, or a key to a message using a process that can not be reversed using the publicly available key that you use. You send the encrypted message to the recipient who holds the private key which is the only key that can decrypt the original message.
The problem then becomes verifying that the public key you are using is actually the public key of the recipient. There are two methods to do that. One is a digital fingerprint, effectively a has of the public key that you can validate over the phone or in some other method. (This is a one way method where the fingerprint can not be used to regenerate the public or private key) The other is peer validation. peer validation relly's upon you trusting a third party to act as an authority on the person you are sending data to. So if you trust your cousin to know his cousin, and your cousin has signed his cousin's public key, you may trust his cousin's public key.
Diffey and Helmen published this, the fine triplet known as RSA subsequently pattented an implementation of the procedure, and that pattent has since expired. In other words this is old news.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understand it, and I could be wrong, there are effectively four varients of Tivo, possibly five. The first is off-air Tivo. Generally what you are looking for, though I am not the one to describe where to find one.
Next up is Cable-Box Tivo. This is a Tivo recorder that also stands in as a Cable-Box. You may find this at your local BestBuy, or through your local Cable provider.
The next one or two are DirecTV and Dish Tivo recorders. They have one or two sattelite decoders built into the system. Unless the FCC or FTC comes down against the merger, these two variations will either be replaced by an equivalent product, or be upgraded to being the same product. This is why I have not broken the seals on my box yet. I figure one of two things will happen, My Tivo will be replaced, and I can hack the replacement box, my Tivo will not be replaced, and I will be able to hack my box with an added/very large hard drive.
The last variation that may not exist is a C-band 4DTV reciever/recorder.
YMMV...
-Rusty
I was about to say that using the eXit button in the upper right corner was safe, but then I remembered the execute on exit popups that were popular about a year ago....
-Rusty
Actually a slightly different purpose here. Project Gutenberg (PG) is oriented around putting public domain books into electronic form. Considering that the timeframe to put a book into the public domain these days exceeds the age at which ISBN's are applicable, it would be a little bit out of their leauge.
The other side of this is that for older books that have value based upon their age, if the book is in PG, someone who owns the book may feel it's value will be better retained if they read the electronic edition from PG, rather than the paper copy they possess.
Hmm. One other feature of a personal bookdb program would be to be able to keep track of the replacement value, and current condition of the books you own. This may have insurance value if you maintain a paper report with your insurance agent.
It might also be usefull to build this into a "domestic property" database, where you would record artwork, craft work, and other property. Generally this will be a much smaller collection of items, but may have a greater general value. I generally won't buy a book for over $100, but if I felt the quality was there, might be comfortable paying over $300 for a piece of art.
This could also work for any collectable, such as comic books or baseball cards.
Obviously baseball cards, artwork, etc won't have ISBN, DD, or LOCBNs, so the keys for these databases would have to be otherwise assigned.
Just some thoughts.
-Rusty
I almost hate to suggest this, but you might consider making this a sourceforge or Savanah project. The advantage of this is that your code starts as the root of the project. Features can be added, such as a borrowed to and when, book reviews, ratings, target age group. Also if the code is sufficiently portable, which I don't know if cold fusion apps are, it could be made available in a number of languages.
Part of the long term project would be to share the data that each user has, either through a central repository, as cddb/freedb do, or through a distributed repository.
It would be nice if the repository were independantly searchable and browsable, as you could then find out that your co-worker, or friend in your local 0097 club has a copy of that $90 book on cryptography you need for a project you just got involved in, and perhaps can ask either through the program, or via e-mail if you could borrow it vs. buying it, or even if they have already loaned it to someone. That would require a friend/co-worker feature.
One feature might be a cross-conversion utility that would convert from ISBN to LOCBN and or DD and vice versa. If your local public library is online, you could cross-reference their catalog for books as well.
-Rusty
I think there are several different levels of personal data, which it makes sense to have different levels of security against.
The lowest level of security would be unauthenticated attribution. i.e. someone quoting something I have written. You don't know if the quote is accurate, or even what the context is, so it would make as much sense for you to rely upon it as it would for me to encapsulate it in a gpg signature. One example would be a blog. While it is reasonable to assume that what you find in a blog is from the person attributed, it is rare indeed to find one gpg signed.
Next up would be "for the record" personal data. This is data such as public keys, and personal data that I want publicly known. In this case the data should be stored in a manner that self corrects. gpg signing is only part of the solution, distributed storage similar to a raid5 storage of data across many disperse web servers, such that removing one server does not remove any data, and removing up to a fifth or potentially more of the servers would not prevent accurate data reconstruction, could be appropriate.
From here we move into data that we do not want generally available, but may want to make available to specific people or groups of people. Examples include a wife making a grocery list available to her husband, my employer needing my home address, ssn, and bank account number (to insure that I am insurable, collect taxes, and pay me by direct deposit/debit, respectively.)
Next up is data that I may want to maintain so that I can work with it as part of work, hobbies, or other things, that I do not think needs to be generally available, but would not be bothered if it were public knowledge. Raw un-filtered data, parts lists, etc.
Then comes things like rough drafts of works I would like to publish, or incremental evaluations of results that are not complete. I don't know of an author around that wants to discover the second draft of their most recent book out on the internet. It could even cause them to be in violation of a publishing contract. Likewise research materials, general e-mail, personal diaries (not blogs) or journals. At this level you might find people questioning whether it is necessary to back up this data.
The last level is for information that would be more expensive to be public than destroyed. Bank card PINs, Passwords, Private Keys, Love notes. At this level it may make sense to keep the specific data on a USB storage fob chained to your wrist, or secured by a program that maintains it's encryption key on such a device.
I am aware of some people who would maintain that all data that you do not want to be publicly available should be encrypted. For a lot of people maintaining an encrypting infrastructure is beyond them. You or I might think it trivial to set up an encrypted file storage area using gpg, rsa, or mandrake, but then I doubt that my dad would be able to do so.
Worse, the best known examples of private/secure local storage are easily broken into. For example you can encrypt documents, outlook.pst folders, and the like, only to discover that for $19.99 you can break into any of these files. (Even less if you can find and compile the code to break into these files yourself.)
Until real security is made easily usable, and businesses and people begin to understand that just because they want to know something does not mean that they should be given or be able to purchase that piece of information, I think we are going to ultimately see more companies desiring to archive, and make public or available for purchase addresses for stars, embarasing gaffs of politicians, and people being fired for actions they unwittingly participated in before the rules saying that those actions are cause for termination are created.
-Rusty
WarDialing - dialing a large number of phone numbers to see which numbers are to computers.
WarDriving (v1) Driving through communities looking for open 802.11b AccessPoints.
WarDriving (v2) like v1, but looking for X10 cameras.
Was this discovered by people looking for 802.11b APs around the city, encountering interfearance and pulling out an X10 camera reciever?
-Rusty
I believe you are right, and will leave it at that. Perhaps I should have noted it as Xf86v4.x...
Thanks for the correction.
-Rusty
Is this with vmware or in the case of Windows on Linux Wine?
My recolleciton on OS/2 is that while you could write an application that would kill the OS, it was exceedingly unusual for an application that was not deliberatly written that way to do so.
If you chose to run a win3.x app under OS/2, not a win32s, or win32 under Odin, the environment that it ran in looked to the application like a Windows 3.x evironment running on top of PC-Dos.
OS/2 segmented processor cycles, and memory space so that the Windows application could not access memory or cpu outside of what had been allocated. It then ran version of Dos in that space, launching Windows from that instance of Dos.
Since I have not been working with OS/2 for a while, I don't recall any applications it was necessary for, but you could even run seprate instances of Windows, running two applications that would not run at the same time under plane windows.
Obviously there is no such thing as a perfect world. If you want to cut and paste between windows, you will have to have some mechanism for moving data in and out of virtual sessions. Likewise for Drag and Drop, Printing, Network Access, and other fetures.
How well VPC/2 works in those areas, while keeping the sessions separate, is dependent upon the developer as much as it is the OS.
With NT, Microsoft chose to make all legacy applications requiring win16 capabilities run in the same space. If you have two mutually exclusive applications that require win16 capabilities, only one can be run at a time. I would suspect that VMWare does change that, but most people will not buy VMWare for that capability. The ability to run Linux perhaps, but that's a different group.
Again, I personally suspect that if an app crashes Windows under VPC/2, I don't expect it to crash the OS.
I base that opinion on my experience with OS/2 being very capable of dealing with applications that try to access memory or processes outside of what OS/2 allows for.
But I could be wrong, and I have too many other things to do these days to get too concerned one way or the other right now.
-Rusty
Windows itself may crash. Possibly VPC/2 will crash. YOu will be back at your OS/2 desktop, and you simply restart VPC/2, Windows in VPC/2, and reload your application (after the checkdisk required by an unclean shutdown of the windows code completes) You will probably loose any unsaved data, andy may loose additional data by virtue of Windows self corrupting nature.
It is unlikely to affect the OS/2 platform in any way.
Then again, perhaps the PC will go up in a puff of smoke, and the data on the network drive across the country, and all copies of that data on backup storage media stored off site will all go away.
My opinion. My mistake to make.
-Rusty
Well, perhaps as a product directly available from IBM, or retail chains, but you can still get OS/2 under it's new name e-com station, from the people woh convinced IBM that it would be a good idea to continue selling it even if IBM wasn't the marketing force behind it.
That company is Serenity Systems, http://www.serenity-systems.com
Whether or not you or I consider it to be a viable product is not really relevent. If Serenity Systems can survive on it, then for them it is a viable product.
BeOS is the only PC based OS that I have used that has handled threads as well as OS/2 does. This is coming from a user running Linux for the most part now. Your own experience may vary. And if you have political arguments against OS/2, BeOS, et all, because they were proprietary OS's, that's fine. That is one of the main reasons I have converted almost completely to Linux. In my own opinion, proprietary does not necesarily mean does nothing right. But you may take that position if you choose.
Then again this in my opinion. I get the option of being wrong.
-Rusty
The version numbering is on the distribution package, not the OS. Linux users generally recognize that the Kernel is the OS, not the collection of packages that sit on top of the kernel, or even the collection of modules that get plugged into the kernel.
A distribution such as Debian, Redhat, Mandrake, SUSE, Slackware, or any of the dozens or even hundreds of others in existence are a combination of one or more kernels, with a collection of software that sits on top of the kernel to make a potentially useful collection of software for users or server administrators.
What that collection consists of will depend upon the maintainer of that package.
The User Interface may be anything from terminal interfaces such as supporting vt100's attached to serial ports, through complete desktop interfaces consisting of Gnome, KDE, BlackBox, WindowMaker, or other Window Managers riding on X, or any other Windowing system that the package maintainer chooses to use.
There are efforts to port the BeOS ApplicationServer interface to run on the Linux 2.4 kernel. The collection of software that runs under such a port would generally be different from that which will run on a Mandrake distribution using X11r4.x, with a KDE or Gnome window manager.
Likewise if someone really likes the BeOS interface that has been ported to Linux, but does not like the Linux 2.4 kernel for some reason, they are welcome to port it to a BSD, or Hurd varient kernel, or whatever kernel they choose to use.
Just because the latest version of some software may be available from some official web site does not mean that that version will play well with the collection of software you already have on your system. A package is a collection that the people distributing that package included it in the distribution was found to work at a satisfactory level with the other software included in the distribution.
These decisions are far from perfect, and users are generally considered welcome to roll their own distribution by building a boot/root disk and downloading and compiling from source, the software that is available from the official web sites.
Another reason that people chose to use packages is that the developer can indicate in the package what software is required to make this software work, as well as providing recomendations as to what software and documentation might be handy to have around when installing, setting up, and using the software in the package.
If an individual was required to review the offical web site for every package to verify that they had all the required or recomended software, it is unlikely that more than a handful of people would have a system running at all.
On top of this as the "latest version" that is not in a package is generally considered to be bleeding edge software, is is probable that the system would be continuously in a very unstable state.
Then again, if you choose to build and run your system with the latest version of everything, that's your choice and I happen to think that you deserve the respect you will get for a stable system, or the lack of respect you might get from an unstable system.
That's my opinion, I could be wrong.
-Rusty
Like anyone else does so? ...
Mandrake 8.2, RedHat 7.2,
Release numbers for packaging distributions are, and should be numbered by the people maintaining the distribution, to reflect their own perception of whether the release is a major, or minor improvement over the previous release.
For Linus and co, the enhancements to the kernel that moved it from 2.2 to 2.4, were minor changes, things like adding USB support, do not warrent a major version number. If the scheduler or virtual memory manager gets a major improvement, that would probably warrent a version 3.0, or so.
With Debian, the kernel is not the only thing that gets improved by moving from potato to woody. Updates to the user interfaces; Gnome and KDE; many packages, OpenOffice, ssh, and others; as well as the improvements to the kernel, moving from 2.2 to 2.4; suggest that this will be a Major improvement to the Debian Distribution.
Then again, they may be looking at other distribution version numbers and thinking that the public will percieve Debian 2.4 to be less "market" friendly than Debian 3.0.
After all, I wasn't in on the decision to version the software, and these are only my opinions. I could be wrong.
-Rusty
Before I get started, I am not a fan of Microsoft, I don't expect to be asked to present evidence in trial, and I am not an expert at either software design, or the windows source code.
Let's just take Windows Media Player as an example. It is designed to do two things. Work with Audio, and work with Video. Let's say I am working on the component that plays audio. For some reason every time I go to play a sample audio file, the system bogs down and there is a three second delay in playback. To see if the problem is the system calls to load the file, or the system call to actually manipulate the audio out, I decide to write a new interface to audio out. With the new interface to audio out, playback improves tremendously. So I save it as a DLL, and go on with my work. That DLL is part of the Windows Media Player.
Someone over in the OS division trying to optimize the OS to perform better finds out that there is a sound module in the Windows Media Player that performs better than the equivalent module that has been in Windows since 3.0, and says to himself "The new module is smaller, faster, and really does the job better. Let's just redirect system calls to play sounds to that module."
So now the OS requires Windows Media Player to play audio files. Taking Windows Media Player out of the system would require either building a new audio out module, or re-using the old audio out module. Since an audio out module does already exist, MS can rightfully note that the system would be slowed down by pulling WMP out of the OS, and since the old audio out was slower, (and possibly buggier) it would be harder to support.
This can be extrapolated across the rest of the Windows platform for WMP and IE. IE requires access to the TCP/IP stack. Parts of that are not as clean as they could be, so the IE team re-writes those parts in a DLL of their own, and the OS team starts using those calls instead of the original calls.
WMP needs faster access to the screen for video, so writes their own interface. That interface starts getting used by IE for output of their page rendering, and Notepad uses the IE page rendering code so that output to the screen is faster.
As a result of code re-use, windows is smaller than it would have to be without the re-used code. Which is the real intention of using DLL's in the first place. Yet as a result of the various DLLs belonging to IE and WMP, IE and WMP become core parts of the OS, and removing them becomes nearly imposible. Sure you can remove the executable for IE and WMP, but that's a program that calls initialization code from one of the libraries and waits for the library to report that the application is done. All of the actual application is in the DLLs.
If you ask a hundred different developers if this is a good idea for development, you will probably get a nice spectrum of yes and no resposnes with qualifications to those responses.
In the Open Software development world, if you find a faster way to play an audio file, you feed that code into the development tree for the Audio playback toolkit. If your code or patch is adopted, great, if part of it is, and the entire system performs better, that's great too. But the entire OS does not become dependent upon the application you were developing at the time you wrote the improved code. That code could even be use in an entirely different OS kernel.
I happen to like the latter development model better, but I am not in the process of developing a system that is designed to keep others out of what I percieve as my market.
-Rusty
I was under the impression that the original attack on the towers, the attempt to blow up a support column was intended to cause one tower to colapse onto another tower, causing a chain reaction (domino effect) knocking down other towers and buildings near these two.
I am not sure if the people who planed the flights into the two buildings expected the buildings to collapse verticaly, or topple. If they expected the buildings to topple as the result of driving that much mass into the sides, then the construction methods used defeated the attackers intent.
I would be seriously surprised if they attackers expected the towers to effectively implode.
Then again, I could be wrong.
-Rusty
And subsequent reads. (no waiting for the disk head to seak the next cylinder half way across the drive.
Of course this is only really applicable to single user low volume read/write applications.
The true goal of Journaling is still to reduce the recovery time for a power failure. In a highly interactive multi-concurrent-user system, Journaling will have an impact on the responsiveness of the hard drive.
Then again, I have been known to be wrong...
-Rusty
Using a 60bps channel to send a 3600bit key would take one minute. Encrypt the data to be sent via conventional high bandwidth transmition with that 3600bit key for one minute, meanwhile send another 3600bit key via the 60bps channel. Or if 3600 bits is not secure enough for you, use an even larger key, sent over a longer period of time.
Alternatively, send a 60 bit key every second for a 8092 bit key embeded in the high bandwidth data stream, use the 8092 bit key to decrypt the next second's block of data.
The important part is to understand that only the sender and the recipient have the keys. As I understand it the process itself is generating non-crackable keys.
Then again, I could be wrong.
-Rusty
In the hidden partition you can only get to by opening a web browser and pointing at www.tucows.com, they include a couple of e-mail clients that are provided at no additional cost....
They have also included several added fee products under other licences. They do not recover those fees themselves, and the licences have different restrictions and allowances, so your milage may vary.
Then again, you probably knew that and were just trying to get someone's goat.
-Rusty
minimum 5 years documented experience required...
There are a few workarounds to the problem of devices that you do not wish to handle your traffic doing so.
I have seen tunneling via ip-ip, ssh, and other ipv4 protocols mentioned, however there is another option available, and that is to tunnel your traffic as ipv6 traffic over ipv4.
It does take a bit of time to set up, but if you can find an agreable ipv6 network provider to allow you to tunnel to their server, your traffic will not be handled by any transparent proxy server at your local ISP, regardless of the type of traffic that you are working with.
I am not sure how complete the ipv6 implementation for Windows is yet, or, depending upon which version of Windows you may be running, if it is even an option, but for users working with Linux and BSD, this should not be a significant issue.
Then again, I could be wrong.
-Rusty
It's not the gun that is specifically affected, it is a combination of the mask in the front of the monitor, and the alignment magnets on the back of the tube being affected.
You can see the effect of gausing while the monitor is on, or the affect after you turn it on.
-Rusty
Not really sure, but most of the spam filters I have encountered on smtp servers, only check the ip address and host name of the device that is sending the message to it against the BlackHoleList, or another service like that. In some intstances it may be checking From id's againast a list of known spammers, however I think it is reasonable to assume that is not usefull.
Potentially a good way of checking via headers would be to see if a high volume of messages are comming in with the same message-id. However that possibility would affect valid opt-in lists or mail distribution lists if there are a lot of local users participating.
Another method might be to validate that the message-id is reasonably valid. I seem to recall that a valid message-id consists of a hash of the fully qualified host name, and date-time-sequence number for the message. If the hash of the fully qualified host name does not come back to the originating server for the message, or the date-time-sequence number is not valid, discard the message. However that is a lot of logic to build into a spam filter. So I suspect it is a rare filter that contains that capability.
Then again, I could be worng. These are my thoughts, and I claim no expertise.
-Rusty
Well, while I may be a total moron, I have to admit that I do not see any argument in what you have posted that indicates what exactly you belive that 1) implies that Apple Remote Desktop does "so much more" than VNC, and 2) recomends that any non-corporate user has any need to spend $500 for it.
If I am a flaming idiot, what does that make the person trying to flame me?
Three or four questions...
:-)
How large of an meteorite would be needed to make a cow go splat? (I would suspect that it would need to be more than half the volume of the cow, otherwise the cow would probably just collapse with a jet of energy blowing it's legs out from under it...
How much kinnetic energy would be in the meteorite that large?
How close would you want to be to make that observation? Personally I would suspect that a netcam wouldn't provide enough resolution and would be destroyed long before any useful information could be sent from it. Kind of like those videos they like to show of a nuclear explosion, where nothing but commentary is happening, and suddenly you see static.
Though a baseball sized meteorite would provide enought of a show for me, though I would like to have a good sized piece of realestate between me and the cow....
Then again, I could be wrong. I'm sure someone will think I am....
-Rusty
This is exactly the problem that Diffey and Hellman solved by creating the public key/private key pair encryption/decryption scheme.
The general idea is that you encrypt a message, or a key to a message using a process that can not be reversed using the publicly available key that you use. You send the encrypted message to the recipient who holds the private key which is the only key that can decrypt the original message.
The problem then becomes verifying that the public key you are using is actually the public key of the recipient. There are two methods to do that. One is a digital fingerprint, effectively a has of the public key that you can validate over the phone or in some other method. (This is a one way method where the fingerprint can not be used to regenerate the public or private key) The other is peer validation. peer validation relly's upon you trusting a third party to act as an authority on the person you are sending data to. So if you trust your cousin to know his cousin, and your cousin has signed his cousin's public key, you may trust his cousin's public key.
Diffey and Helmen published this, the fine triplet known as RSA subsequently pattented an implementation of the procedure, and that pattent has since expired. In other words this is old news.
-Rusty