At most universities here in Canada, if you are caught cheating on an essay, the minimum punishment is usually an F in the class. For repeat offenders, or more senior students (people who should know better than the ones who are fresh out of high school) the punishment can be more severe, and may include expulsion. If you are caught cheating, or even caught with an appeared intention to cheat on a final exam, you are usually expelled from the school. In which case you can kiss your academic career good-bye because no other school will ever accept you.
The IPv4 addresses are inefficiently distributed. MIT for instance has 16.7 millions of them. IBM too.
Changing existing distributions is almost always harder than creating new distributions. There are many organizations that are not utilising their address space completely efficiently, this is not really possible to fix without introducing a new protocol.
Plus we now have NAT and CIDR that help save some addresses.
They are a hack. A temporary work-around, not a long term solution.
I bet we could use IPv4 for 20 more years. IPv6 is to complex, bulky and inefficient.
If we have to use IPv4 for 20 more years, the Internet as you know it will cease to exist (especially with regards to peer-to-peer), and you can kiss any chance of VOIP succeeding away.
I studied it and the fact that MAC addresses are in it blows me away.
There are many good uses for this feature. The 64 bit MAC address will probably be globally unique as well. So it will be much easier to go anywhere in the world, plug into a wireless network, and have the network recognize your laptop immediately based on your 64 bit MAC.
Aren't the IP addresses a logical layer that prevents problems when you change a NIC ? If each time you change your NIC you have to change you address I foresee lots of trouble here.
Stop thinking that every machine only has one IP address assigned to it. There will be multiple. There will be more dynamic ones that use the MAC, and there will be static addresses too that simply start with <subnet-prefix>::1,::2,::3 and so on.
And 128 bits addresses, okay, but entire classes are already wasted (multicast, network IDs, etc) and in the long term we could run into the same problems !
Multi-cast and network interface IDs have very good uses. Don't dismiss them so easily, just because you do not have a particular use for them yourself.
Anyway its too expensive and slow for the moment. Nobody wants to pay 1 million dollars for the last Cisco router with IPv6 where the one we bought last year for another million is working just fine.
For the moment. But if there is one thing that the last 20 years of technological progress have taught us, it is that you should not bet against substantial reductions in prices for things like CPUs. Moore's Law has at least another 20 years of legs left in it. That is going to bring with much faster chips, for much cheaper prices.
IT is not a strategic asset if you are only using it for standard processes. But if you are using IT to create long-term advantages over your competitors, then it is a strategic asset. Remember that IT is not just the boxes sitting in the datacenter, it is the processes you use to move key business information around and act on that information (in other words IT means people too).
They won't sue you. At the very least tell us who the company doing the audit was. If they actually came after you, they would get an incredibly bad reputation for acting in very unethical ways. And you need trust to operate as a security company.
I am glad that Saddam is gone. I think the Iraqi people are better off now than they were before. However I am still against the War in Iraq, because I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the US to start invading countries without due cause ( it has been shown that there are no connections to terrorism or WMD), aside from the fact that he is a threat to his own people? What about other countries around the world that have governments harming their own people like North Korea? Will the US take them on too.. I doubt it. This is a country that has shown its willingness to attempt to invade other countries (witness the Korean War), it has weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them against American interests (witness the missile being test fired over Japan), and it has a horrible human rights record.
It is unlikely. It will definitly put a damper on the attacks from people who used to be loyal to Saddam, but it won't deter the Islamic terrorists who are shifting their operations into Iraq from abroad. This could mean a shift in attacks from being fairly random, to more attacks targetted against US-owned interests in the region. Only time will tell.
In any event, the economy has turned around. That means re-election.
Not exactly. While output is back on track for strong growth, employment has not bounced back nearly as strongly as most economists say it would have in a normal cycle. So it really depends on how voters are going to react. Are they going to vote believing the economy really has turned around? Or are they going to see that there hasn't been much in the way of significant job creation and vote accordingly?..
Yeah, but if you think that the lower costs are going to lead to lower prices, think again.
No, what we need is municipal-owned fiber networks with open-access to all types of service provider.
Re:Unfortunately much spam originates from the US.
on
UK Spam Law Goes Live
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Again, you missed his point. These people are operating completely via proxies. The websites, the trojaned open-relays, the dns hosting, are based in Asia and operated discretly by career spammers in the US. The only way you can trace it, is either the fingerprint in the spam or by "reverse-hacking" those already trojaned machines to find the path back to the original spammer's location.
RBC is not in this for pump-and-dump. They are a banking institution and have way too much to lose from the consequences of taking part in such a scheme. Any gains from a pump-and-dump would be outweighed by the massive loses from being perceived as an untrustworthy entity to do business with.
We have only a handful of major banks here in Canada. When they do anything that might be conceived as remotely negative, they get severly attacked for it.
I've always thought there was something fishy about RBC's rold in this. I can tell you such speculative investments are way out of character for a Canadian bank. Even if the money comes from the New York office of their brokerage/investment bank arm. When the deal was first announced, RBC refused comment saying they never comment on client affairs. That cryptic response caused some questions as the relationship with SCO didn't look like a bank/client relationship. An SEC filing in November indicated that the $30 million was RBC's money and did not belong to anyone else. It also indicated that RBC did not intend to sell its shares and had no prior arrangement to sell them.
Now another cryptic statement. I've felt (with no evidence) that RBC was indeed up to something. But what? My best guess is that they have used their own money, and are not holding the shares for anyone else. And that they have an agreement with a third party about the disposition of any profit or loss from the deal. The logical arrangement would be that RBC puts up the money and gets to keep any profits. But the third party would compensate them for any loss. Thus the investment is clean, and the third party gets to funnel cash to SCO without disclosing their involvement.
For the record, I have no idea who such a third party might be. I don't think it would be Microsoft. They have lots of money marching in the front door. Why would they need to sneak money in the back? But that doesn't leave any other likely suspects. Its possible that one of the other big propriatory software companies, like Adobe, could be behind it. We may never know.
No, you do not understand what is going on here. RBC invested in SCO on behalf of a third-party. The investment was made by RBC on behalf of a client. The client gives RBC the money plus a fee, and RBC puts their money into the deal.
No, what is going on here is someone is trying to make a wager on SCO and they don't want anyone to know about.
There is a partly valid point though there. Even though Apache may be more secure than IIS, having end-users running around and installing other software can be a problem. Otherwise anybody could install some network application, and the user may not keep it patched and up-to-date. Then when the network gets hit with a worm or something that is particular to the installed software, you have a problem because the IT department may not be trained to patch and administer that type of software.
It doesn't matter when an agency uses Windows, Linux, Unix or Macs. If you don't have the right security processes in place, you can be running the most secure operating in the world and you will still get a failing grade. The products you choose are only a small part of security, its how you use them and continually work to secure them against intruders that matters.
Look at what they have done after 9/11. Instead of working to fix the root of the problems, anti-americanism, GWB goes on a shooting spree invading countries without regard for any consequences.
No, I think we should hold those in government personally accountable for security flaws. Just like CEOs and CFOs are now required to sign off on financial statements. Senior government officials should be required to certify their agencies are secure. Then we should have yearly audits of this, and those that report vastly misleading results or fail to do anything about them get canned.
You can't find NT on the shelves. It's only available through select channels, and I believe Retail is no longer one of them. All those customers are supposed to be upgrading to Windows 2000 or 2003 anyways.
In the original full posting, they give the full list of all products being retired:
Due to a settlement agreement reached in January 2001, the following
products are being phased out and will no longer available to customers
through MSDN Subscriber Downloads or other channels at Microsoft. These
products will be removed from MSDN Subscriber Downloads as of December 15th,
2003.
Office XP Developer
Visio 2000
BackOffice Server 2000
Office 2000 Developer
Office 2000 Tools
Office 2000 Multilingual
Office 2000 Premium SR-1
Office 2000 Service Pack 2
Outlook 2000
Project 2000
SQL Server 7
SQL Server 7 Service Pack 3
Embedded Visual Tools 3.0
Visual Studio 6 MSDE
IE 5.5
MapPoint 2002
Visual Studio 6.0 SP3 and SP5
Windows 98
Windows 98 Y2K
Windows 98 Resource Kit
Windows 98 SP1 (all win98 except SE)
Windows NT 4.0
ISA Server 2000
Visual Basic for (Alpha Systems)
The following product will be updated with Java-compliant versions before
the 12/31/03 deadline:
Office XP Professional with FrontPage
Publisher 2002
Windows NT 4.0
Small Business Server 2000
I doubt it. What does a giant corporation like Viacom have to gain from sending out penis-enlargement advertisements?
The most reasonable guess along this line would be the drug companies trying to sell to an underground market. But everyone knows that the drug companies are fighting hard to keep the drug prices artificially high in the US, so what would they have to gain too?
I mean, have you looked at most spam lately? It certainly doesn't appear to be a case of a real company trying to make a legimate profit. Most spam is for bogus offers.
No, you are wrong. The real solution involves a multitude of changes. It requires blacklists, filters, open relay blocking, client verification, legislation and possibly other fixes as well.
There is no magic silver bullet that is going to make spam go away. The key is bringing all of these various pieces together, thereby closing the loopholes bit by bit until it is no longer feasible for spammers to continue their operations.
It has been happening since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Businesses will attempt to seize market domination and then use their political influence to maintain their monopolistic positions. This will never change, the only we can do is make sure that we have laws in place to protect against it.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, I though contracts don't overrule constitutional law.
At most universities here in Canada, if you are caught cheating on an essay, the minimum punishment is usually an F in the class. For repeat offenders, or more senior students (people who should know better than the ones who are fresh out of high school) the punishment can be more severe, and may include expulsion. If you are caught cheating, or even caught with an appeared intention to cheat on a final exam, you are usually expelled from the school. In which case you can kiss your academic career good-bye because no other school will ever accept you.
Changing existing distributions is almost always harder than creating new distributions. There are many organizations that are not utilising their address space completely efficiently, this is not really possible to fix without introducing a new protocol.
Plus we now have NAT and CIDR that help save some addresses.
They are a hack. A temporary work-around, not a long term solution.
I bet we could use IPv4 for 20 more years. IPv6 is to complex, bulky and inefficient.
If we have to use IPv4 for 20 more years, the Internet as you know it will cease to exist (especially with regards to peer-to-peer), and you can kiss any chance of VOIP succeeding away.
I studied it and the fact that MAC addresses are in it blows me away.
There are many good uses for this feature. The 64 bit MAC address will probably be globally unique as well. So it will be much easier to go anywhere in the world, plug into a wireless network, and have the network recognize your laptop immediately based on your 64 bit MAC.
Aren't the IP addresses a logical layer that prevents problems when you change a NIC ? If each time you change your NIC you have to change you address I foresee lots of trouble here. ::2, ::3 and so on.
Stop thinking that every machine only has one IP address assigned to it. There will be multiple. There will be more dynamic ones that use the MAC, and there will be static addresses too that simply start with <subnet-prefix>::1,
And 128 bits addresses, okay, but entire classes are already wasted (multicast, network IDs, etc) and in the long term we could run into the same problems !
Multi-cast and network interface IDs have very good uses. Don't dismiss them so easily, just because you do not have a particular use for them yourself.
Anyway its too expensive and slow for the moment. Nobody wants to pay 1 million dollars for the last Cisco router with IPv6 where the one we bought last year for another million is working just fine.
For the moment. But if there is one thing that the last 20 years of technological progress have taught us, it is that you should not bet against substantial reductions in prices for things like CPUs. Moore's Law has at least another 20 years of legs left in it. That is going to bring with much faster chips, for much cheaper prices.
IT is not a strategic asset if you are only using it for standard processes. But if you are using IT to create long-term advantages over your competitors, then it is a strategic asset. Remember that IT is not just the boxes sitting in the datacenter, it is the processes you use to move key business information around and act on that information (in other words IT means people too).
They won't sue you. At the very least tell us who the company doing the audit was. If they actually came after you, they would get an incredibly bad reputation for acting in very unethical ways. And you need trust to operate as a security company.
I am glad that Saddam is gone. I think the Iraqi people are better off now than they were before. However I am still against the War in Iraq, because I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the US to start invading countries without due cause ( it has been shown that there are no connections to terrorism or WMD), aside from the fact that he is a threat to his own people? What about other countries around the world that have governments harming their own people like North Korea? Will the US take them on too.. I doubt it. This is a country that has shown its willingness to attempt to invade other countries (witness the Korean War), it has weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver them against American interests (witness the missile being test fired over Japan), and it has a horrible human rights record.
It is unlikely. It will definitly put a damper on the attacks from people who used to be loyal to Saddam, but it won't deter the Islamic terrorists who are shifting their operations into Iraq from abroad. This could mean a shift in attacks from being fairly random, to more attacks targetted against US-owned interests in the region. Only time will tell.
In any event, the economy has turned around. That means re-election.
..
Not exactly. While output is back on track for strong growth, employment has not bounced back nearly as strongly as most economists say it would have in a normal cycle. So it really depends on how voters are going to react. Are they going to vote believing the economy really has turned around? Or are they going to see that there hasn't been much in the way of significant job creation and vote accordingly?
Yeah, but if you think that the lower costs are going to lead to lower prices, think again.
No, what we need is municipal-owned fiber networks with open-access to all types of service provider.
Again, you missed his point. These people are operating completely via proxies. The websites, the trojaned open-relays, the dns hosting, are based in Asia and operated discretly by career spammers in the US. The only way you can trace it, is either the fingerprint in the spam or by "reverse-hacking" those already trojaned machines to find the path back to the original spammer's location.
RBC is not in this for pump-and-dump. They are a banking institution and have way too much to lose from the consequences of taking part in such a scheme. Any gains from a pump-and-dump would be outweighed by the massive loses from being perceived as an untrustworthy entity to do business with.
We have only a handful of major banks here in Canada. When they do anything that might be conceived as remotely negative, they get severly attacked for it.
One user states:
No, its a pipe deal. Somebody else is pushing money to SCO through RBC.
No, you do not understand what is going on here. RBC invested in SCO on behalf of a third-party. The investment was made by RBC on behalf of a client. The client gives RBC the money plus a fee, and RBC puts their money into the deal.
No, what is going on here is someone is trying to make a wager on SCO and they don't want anyone to know about.
There is a partly valid point though there. Even though Apache may be more secure than IIS, having end-users running around and installing other software can be a problem. Otherwise anybody could install some network application, and the user may not keep it patched and up-to-date. Then when the network gets hit with a worm or something that is particular to the installed software, you have a problem because the IT department may not be trained to patch and administer that type of software.
It doesn't matter when an agency uses Windows, Linux, Unix or Macs. If you don't have the right security processes in place, you can be running the most secure operating in the world and you will still get a failing grade. The products you choose are only a small part of security, its how you use them and continually work to secure them against intruders that matters.
Look at what they have done after 9/11. Instead of working to fix the root of the problems, anti-americanism, GWB goes on a shooting spree invading countries without regard for any consequences.
No, I think we should hold those in government personally accountable for security flaws. Just like CEOs and CFOs are now required to sign off on financial statements. Senior government officials should be required to certify their agencies are secure. Then we should have yearly audits of this, and those that report vastly misleading results or fail to do anything about them get canned.
You can't find NT on the shelves. It's only available through select channels, and I believe Retail is no longer one of them. All those customers are supposed to be upgrading to Windows 2000 or 2003 anyways.
Due to a settlement agreement reached in January 2001, the following products are being phased out and will no longer available to customers through MSDN Subscriber Downloads or other channels at Microsoft. These products will be removed from MSDN Subscriber Downloads as of December 15th, 2003.
Office XP DeveloperVisio 2000
BackOffice Server 2000
Office 2000 Developer
Office 2000 Tools
Office 2000 Multilingual
Office 2000 Premium SR-1
Office 2000 Service Pack 2
Outlook 2000
Project 2000
SQL Server 7
SQL Server 7 Service Pack 3
Embedded Visual Tools 3.0
Visual Studio 6 MSDE
IE 5.5
MapPoint 2002
Visual Studio 6.0 SP3 and SP5
Windows 98
Windows 98 Y2K
Windows 98 Resource Kit
Windows 98 SP1 (all win98 except SE)
Windows NT 4.0
ISA Server 2000
Visual Basic for (Alpha Systems)
The following product will be updated with Java-compliant versions before the 12/31/03 deadline: Office XP Professional with FrontPage
Publisher 2002
Windows NT 4.0
Small Business Server 2000
I doubt it. What does a giant corporation like Viacom have to gain from sending out penis-enlargement advertisements?
The most reasonable guess along this line would be the drug companies trying to sell to an underground market. But everyone knows that the drug companies are fighting hard to keep the drug prices artificially high in the US, so what would they have to gain too? I mean, have you looked at most spam lately? It certainly doesn't appear to be a case of a real company trying to make a legimate profit. Most spam is for bogus offers.
No, you are wrong. The real solution involves a multitude of changes. It requires blacklists, filters, open relay blocking, client verification, legislation and possibly other fixes as well.
There is no magic silver bullet that is going to make spam go away. The key is bringing all of these various pieces together, thereby closing the loopholes bit by bit until it is no longer feasible for spammers to continue their operations.
It has been happening since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Businesses will attempt to seize market domination and then use their political influence to maintain their monopolistic positions. This will never change, the only we can do is make sure that we have laws in place to protect against it.
You forgot to post anonymously, retard!
There is no SCO code in Linux. They already admitted that in court.