Its trivial to modify/etc/inittab so that the good ol' three-fingered-salute does something, like restart the getty on the current console.
Hmm...that's a very good point. I didn't think of that.
Though the existence of X means that at least some applications (which presumably require root) can trap it. Dunno about svgalib apps. I'm not familiar with the details of the mechanism involved.
Right, but the point is that it requires complete compromise of the OS to conduct any attacks, rather than just leaving an account logged in with a fake "login" screen.
Since it's used as part of certifying trusted OSes, the idea is that you're have at least some goal of not having the OS compromised.:-)
I can't really say that my political views line up with any single party.
However, I do have to say that I do support the same gun rights and widespread ownership of arms that the NRA supports.
Here's the rationale: the reason you ensure that the citizenry has effective access to military-class weaponry is that there is then no way that a small number of people in political power can suppress and control the masses, else they'll have a mass revolution on their hands. Sure, one or two angry people will get immediately killed, but if things get really out of hand, enough for a sizeable chunk of the populace to take up arms, a corrupt administration could be overthrown.
So, ultimately, gun control advocates want to exchange some robustness (ability of a society to dissuade the existence of out of control leaders) for some efficiency benefits (fewer people being shot). Gun rights advocates want the opposite. Given the number of dictatorships that have existed around the world (and that have come from non-dictatorships -- dictatorships aren't just "soemthing that happen to somebody else"), I view having an ultimate check on abuse of government power as more important than the risk of gun deaths, especially since I know that it's possible to implement a nation that has very strong gun rights but doesn't suffer gun crime problems (Switzerland, which has a much lower rate of gun crime than the United States, requires every male of fighting age to own a rifle (they're all technically part of the militia, which is one reason that nobody occupies Switzerland), and allows civilians to own things like howitzers).
I agree that the Constitution alone saying something is not a sufficient reason to engage in it -- that being said, the Constitution has served us admirably well for a while, and elements of it should not be thrown out without some serious deep thinking.
In our current voting system, voting Libertarian simply gives Bush half a vote.
This is a fact not lost on the Republican Party, which is having a hard time convincing enough people to vote for Bush, and is currently in legal trouble in two states for funnelling money to Nader, in the hopes that he might be able to weaken Kerry enough.
Their presidential candidate this time around is Michael Badnarik. He's a computer programmer by trade and he gets the whole "The Patriot Act really was a bad idea" argument.
With the US's existing voting rules, a vote for Badnarik is one half of a vote for Bush.
Unless there's (a lot) more to this case that we don't know about, like he was using the SG-1 fansite as a cover for child porn or sale of nuclear weapons or something, then the amount of force used against him was totally out of line.
In your mind, child porn is on the same level as trafficking in nuclear weapons? City-killers?
Hi America, this is England. We just noticed that your war of independance was illegal and we'd like our colony back.
You've got yourself a problem -- you want to get rid of Bush, but your own Blair has his lips firmly glued to Bush's cock. I'm not sure the two are separable.
Sorry, but under Kerry it'll be Reno all over again. And there isn't a whole lot to choose from between Reno and Ashcroft.
You've got to be joking. The Reno DoJ was *infinitely* more transparent and willing to release information about its activities than the Ashcroft DoJ.
I'll vote Libertarian.
I'm sorry to hear that. You're voting in a voting system that is designed to make your vote worthless if you make such a move.
After voting reform (with, say, preferential voting) it makes sense. Trying to get Nader to beat Bush under the existing system? It's a pipe dream, and simply counts as half a vote for Bush.
I'd much rather the FBI (which, remember, I support with my tax dollars) goes after REAL criminals and not copyright infringers.
Actually, the FBI can't go after a murderer unless he crosses state lines, or someone that steals a Ferrari (since the FBI only deals with crimes involving losses of half a million dollars or more).
But, apparently, when it comes to taping television episodes and putting them up for download, *then* our FBI (cue "This Is Your FBI!" theme music) can get involved.
I guess they can't get *shot* at investgating a crime like this one...
Xorg doesn't provide C2 security, as there isn't a trusted keystroke that can bring one to a known-good login., nor does the Linux console. If SuSE Enterprise got something equivalent to C2, it's definitely got some serious modifications.
One example - SCO. A near worthless organization (about $10 million in market capitalization) until they discovered they "owned" Linux. They have been accused of ties with Microsoft (there is some evidence through BlueStar), but I'm not convinced. The Justice Department is ever watchful these days.
Personally, I'd see it as a counterargument to your claim -- a large company fighting a proxy war using a small medium-sized company.
I have not had problems with ordinary Google searches all day -- I have discoverd a single sitesearch that Google happens to barf on for the day, but that's it. I've also been steadily using Google all day.
It really isn't all that big of a deal -- it's just interesting that someone managed to stop part of Google's services at all.
I wonder why you never see Google employees posting on Slashdot. Many tech companies occasionally do (oh, with a "my opinions are my own" thing, but they're at least there).
Maybe it's just so much fun to work at Google that they can't spare the time to ever look at Slashdot.:-)
In the case of a multibillion dollar search engine company with dozens, if not hundreds, of trademark applications worldwide, you would think they would perform a small federal trademark search (my firm charges $300). One would also assume that such an important mark would also have a comprehensive trademark search, checking magazine references, state trademark registries, domain names, etc.
Even more ironically, since it wasn't a registered trademark, the most fruitful approach your firm probably could have used for this would have been to, y'know, Google it. One would hope that whoever does legal stuff for Google actually, y'know, uses their search engine.:-)
To be fair, they pretty clearly (from looking at the domain) *are* a domain name squatter.
I kinda agree with you -- Google should have picked up any domains it wanted and registered the trademarks *before* launching the service.
I don't think that there's going to be *that* much confusions between "froogle.google.com" and "froogles.com", though, unless the owner tries making it confusing.
Yahoo has had a ton of subdomains (quote.yahoo.com, biz.yahoo.com) for ages and you don't see people confusing them with quote.com or biz.com.
The aging, aging HotBot is still occasionally useful, as it allows one to search for pages containing links to files with a given extension, which is functionality that even Google lacks.
I just looked up the even more ancient WebCrawler -- turns out that they've since become a metaengine for Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, About, Overture, and Teoma.
I wouldn't put it past 'ole Billy to hire some guerilla coders to help his cause.
For a moment, let's ignore the liability and ethics issues.
You're proposing that Gates would promote infection of machines running his own OS during a year when security of such machines is a hot topic and a major wedge being used against him to randomly attack Google for a short period of time? C'mon, let's get real.
Google has a lot of computer scientists and techies, and all they need to do is write a quick regex to match these "banned" searches, slap a 72-hour ban on any IP that's the source of more than, say, 1000 "banned" searches in a day, reply with a static page that says "SOL, your request came from an infected computer, contact your sysadmin" and then start looking for a more fundamental and elegant solution for a long-term fix.
They'll have this patched over in less than 24 hours, for certain.
I mean, I'm more than happy to blame Microsoft when Microsoft screws up, but I can't see how there was any technical error that Microsoft made that resulted in MyDoom where the Linux world does better.
However, I am a little sad that they wound up going with the Syberia engine. I suppose it's just as well -- I suppose it's more modern and all that, and they listed their justifications -- but I would have gotten a kick out of it if they could have used the ScummVM engine (a free reimplementation of the old Lucasarts adventure engine, and what anyone playing Lucasarts adventure games on a modern OS uses today). Their earlier games at Lucasarts used that engine. They could use freely and was written by developers that had the same love of adventure games as the artists at Autumn Moon do.
Slashdot Mirror
Its trivial to modify /etc/inittab so that the good ol' three-fingered-salute does something, like restart the getty on the current console.
Hmm...that's a very good point. I didn't think of that.
Though the existence of X means that at least some applications (which presumably require root) can trap it. Dunno about svgalib apps. I'm not familiar with the details of the mechanism involved.
Right, but the point is that it requires complete compromise of the OS to conduct any attacks, rather than just leaving an account logged in with a fake "login" screen.
:-)
Since it's used as part of certifying trusted OSes, the idea is that you're have at least some goal of not having the OS compromised.
I can't really say that my political views line up with any single party.
However, I do have to say that I do support the same gun rights and widespread ownership of arms that the NRA supports.
Here's the rationale: the reason you ensure that the citizenry has effective access to military-class weaponry is that there is then no way that a small number of people in political power can suppress and control the masses, else they'll have a mass revolution on their hands. Sure, one or two angry people will get immediately killed, but if things get really out of hand, enough for a sizeable chunk of the populace to take up arms, a corrupt administration could be overthrown.
So, ultimately, gun control advocates want to exchange some robustness (ability of a society to dissuade the existence of out of control leaders) for some efficiency benefits (fewer people being shot). Gun rights advocates want the opposite. Given the number of dictatorships that have existed around the world (and that have come from non-dictatorships -- dictatorships aren't just "soemthing that happen to somebody else"), I view having an ultimate check on abuse of government power as more important than the risk of gun deaths, especially since I know that it's possible to implement a nation that has very strong gun rights but doesn't suffer gun crime problems (Switzerland, which has a much lower rate of gun crime than the United States, requires every male of fighting age to own a rifle (they're all technically part of the militia, which is one reason that nobody occupies Switzerland), and allows civilians to own things like howitzers).
I agree that the Constitution alone saying something is not a sufficient reason to engage in it -- that being said, the Constitution has served us admirably well for a while, and elements of it should not be thrown out without some serious deep thinking.
We're also smart enough to see that Kerry is no different than Bush, a fact that seems to elude Kerry supporters and other democrats.
No?
Are you sure?
In our current voting system, voting Libertarian simply gives Bush half a vote.
This is a fact not lost on the Republican Party, which is having a hard time convincing enough people to vote for Bush, and is currently in legal trouble in two states for funnelling money to Nader, in the hopes that he might be able to weaken Kerry enough.
Their presidential candidate this time around is Michael Badnarik. He's a computer programmer by trade and he gets the whole "The Patriot Act really was a bad idea" argument.
With the US's existing voting rules, a vote for Badnarik is one half of a vote for Bush.
Unless there's (a lot) more to this case that we don't know about, like he was using the SG-1 fansite as a cover for child porn or sale of nuclear weapons or something, then the amount of force used against him was totally out of line.
In your mind, child porn is on the same level as trafficking in nuclear weapons? City-killers?
Hi America, this is England. We just noticed that your war of independance was illegal and we'd like our colony back.
You've got yourself a problem -- you want to get rid of Bush, but your own Blair has his lips firmly glued to Bush's cock. I'm not sure the two are separable.
Sorry, but under Kerry it'll be Reno all over again. And there isn't a whole lot to choose from between Reno and Ashcroft.
You've got to be joking. The Reno DoJ was *infinitely* more transparent and willing to release information about its activities than the Ashcroft DoJ.
I'll vote Libertarian.
I'm sorry to hear that. You're voting in a voting system that is designed to make your vote worthless if you make such a move.
After voting reform (with, say, preferential voting) it makes sense. Trying to get Nader to beat Bush under the existing system? It's a pipe dream, and simply counts as half a vote for Bush.
Do we? I keep forgetting that /.'ers convieniently ignore the fact that Kerry isn't repealing the PATRIOT Act.
You, sir, are full of shit.
Kerry supports letting the PATRIOT Act expire, Bush supports renewing it.
Stealing is stealing.
And copyright infringement is copyright infringement, not stealing.
I think you could at least use the proper term for the crime, given that we're talking about legal implications.
Doing otherwise is like calling someone that accidentally hits someone with their car, killing them, a "murderer".
I'd much rather the FBI (which, remember, I support with my tax dollars) goes after REAL criminals and not copyright infringers.
...
Actually, the FBI can't go after a murderer unless he crosses state lines, or someone that steals a Ferrari (since the FBI only deals with crimes involving losses of half a million dollars or more).
But, apparently, when it comes to taping television episodes and putting them up for download, *then* our FBI (cue "This Is Your FBI!" theme music) can get involved.
I guess they can't get *shot* at investgating a crime like this one
Xorg doesn't provide C2 security, as there isn't a trusted keystroke that can bring one to a known-good login., nor does the Linux console. If SuSE Enterprise got something equivalent to C2, it's definitely got some serious modifications.
One example - SCO. A near worthless organization (about $10 million in market capitalization) until they discovered they "owned" Linux. They have been accused of ties with Microsoft (there is some evidence through BlueStar), but I'm not convinced. The Justice Department is ever watchful these days.
Personally, I'd see it as a counterargument to your claim -- a large company fighting a proxy war using a small medium-sized company.
Insightful, interesting proposal that is a good argument against the existence of software patents.
I have not had problems with ordinary Google searches all day -- I have discoverd a single sitesearch that Google happens to barf on for the day, but that's it. I've also been steadily using Google all day.
:-)
It really isn't all that big of a deal -- it's just interesting that someone managed to stop part of Google's services at all.
I wonder why you never see Google employees posting on Slashdot. Many tech companies occasionally do (oh, with a "my opinions are my own" thing, but they're at least there).
Maybe it's just so much fun to work at Google that they can't spare the time to ever look at Slashdot.
In the case of a multibillion dollar search engine company with dozens, if not hundreds, of trademark applications worldwide, you would think they would perform a small federal trademark search (my firm charges $300). One would also assume that such an important mark would also have a comprehensive trademark search, checking magazine references, state trademark registries, domain names, etc.
:-)
Even more ironically, since it wasn't a registered trademark, the most fruitful approach your firm probably could have used for this would have been to, y'know, Google it. One would hope that whoever does legal stuff for Google actually, y'know, uses their search engine.
To be fair, they pretty clearly (from looking at the domain) *are* a domain name squatter.
I kinda agree with you -- Google should have picked up any domains it wanted and registered the trademarks *before* launching the service.
I don't think that there's going to be *that* much confusions between "froogle.google.com" and "froogles.com", though, unless the owner tries making it confusing.
Yahoo has had a ton of subdomains (quote.yahoo.com, biz.yahoo.com) for ages and you don't see people confusing them with quote.com or biz.com.
AllTheWeb is mostly good for media results.
The aging, aging HotBot is still occasionally useful, as it allows one to search for pages containing links to files with a given extension, which is functionality that even Google lacks.
I just looked up the even more ancient WebCrawler -- turns out that they've since become a metaengine for Google, Yahoo, Ask Jeeves, About, Overture, and Teoma.
I wouldn't put it past 'ole Billy to hire some guerilla coders to help his cause.
For a moment, let's ignore the liability and ethics issues.
You're proposing that Gates would promote infection of machines running his own OS during a year when security of such machines is a hot topic and a major wedge being used against him to randomly attack Google for a short period of time? C'mon, let's get real.
Google has a lot of computer scientists and techies, and all they need to do is write a quick regex to match these "banned" searches, slap a 72-hour ban on any IP that's the source of more than, say, 1000 "banned" searches in a day, reply with a static page that says "SOL, your request came from an infected computer, contact your sysadmin" and then start looking for a more fundamental and elegant solution for a long-term fix.
They'll have this patched over in less than 24 hours, for certain.
Why is MyDoom a Microsoft problem?
I mean, I'm more than happy to blame Microsoft when Microsoft screws up, but I can't see how there was any technical error that Microsoft made that resulted in MyDoom where the Linux world does better.
I just tried searching for "site:ii.com mailsnare", and got alternating forbidden and "server error" results.
"site:gov mailsnare" works fine. Go figure.
The problem is that the false positive rate is high enough that users learn to ignore their AV software.
I wish the Autumn Moon folks best of luck.
However, I am a little sad that they wound up going with the Syberia engine. I suppose it's just as well -- I suppose it's more modern and all that, and they listed their justifications -- but I would have gotten a kick out of it if they could have used the ScummVM engine (a free reimplementation of the old Lucasarts adventure engine, and what anyone playing Lucasarts adventure games on a modern OS uses today). Their earlier games at Lucasarts used that engine. They could use freely and was written by developers that had the same love of adventure games as the artists at Autumn Moon do.
Linux really needs one desktop and I'm praying Miguel's GNOME ain't it.
You'd rather have Qt's license at the core of it?