It's not a hot swappable drive, it's a person who contributed a great deal to the band over a long time, and lacking that, you'd never find anyone who could play bass like him. Queen couldn't replace Freddy Mercury and the Who can't replace John.
I'm more wondering if this type of system may be suseptable to massive variations in heat, as fluids (even though, yes, glass is a liquid technically) generally expand and contract at temperature gradiants. I don't think this would be a problem underground, or even above ground, but more along the sea floor. Maybe I've been watching too much discovery channel(at 3am of course), but it seems like the sea floor is a pretty intolerant and changing place. So I guess the liquid would have to have the same thermal properties as the glass itself. I'm not sure, the article didn't go into a lot of detail, so anyone have more information?
"See No Evil, Hear No Evil Act"
on
DRM Helmet
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Why do this give me the image of a group of senators with money stuffed into their pockets as anthropomorphized monkeys doing the see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil faces?
"This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the V-22 Osprey deathplane."
Nice to see no politics being spouted here.
I wouldn't call that politics, more a statement of fact skewed towards presenting a certain viewpoint... Oh wait, that's spin.
The concept of buffer overflows - 3rd Semester, 2nd year, CS 221 - Data Structures was when I learned it. Maybe they should force every CS major to complete hackersquest. The majority of that teaches you how to avoid seriously bad coding. Not that it takes bad coding to disrupt a system, viruses/worms can always take advantage of the ignorance of (l)users, and we can't get rid of that. Attachments in email/etc. combined with most of the holes in the HIVs of the computing world (ISS, VB, Windows Scripting Host, Lookout Express) seem to currently be the platform of choice. They're easy to exploit, so why go after the *nix systems?
Code Red, Nimda, both took advantage of shoddy coding in the MS Platform.
Earlier I came off as a bit of a troll, but us Linux/BSD people aren't immune to being subverted for a DDOS. At a place I used to work, the management forced the system admins to put a (l)user suggested IRC daemon on our webhost box. That daemon, IRCu, is subject to all sorts of exploits, including one which effectively gives the exploiter root access. We found out this barely monitored box had been compromised (it was our just for play server, ran apache, tripwire, php, perl, ssl and irc) when we recieved a notice of ban from dalnet. Checked the box found an eggdrop that had been installed and then went into the channel it was configured for. Saw a good hundred or so of these bots each one a box that the kiddie had nailed. I'm assuming most of them were *nix, but at least our flaws are from dumbass moves on the part of administrators, and not every admin makes mistakes now and then (I hope).
And an alternative point can be made as well, every time one of these worms goes rampant throughout the internet, it may affect us, but it should in theory hurt Microsoft more. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the reasons why a lot of companies are migrating away from NT is because of these ISS and VB holes. So while it may hurt us in the short term, it will hurt those who put out shoddy software more in the long term.
I got scared for a second, then did a google search for identified linux worms, thought about how many times I've never caught one, and promptly became glad my OS isn't mainstream.
So does fire, and you're missing out on virii and the secondary definitions of life [cellular or molecular, I can't remember been a looonnng time since bio]. That's the classic argument:
Fire:
1. Shows evidence of growth and replication - Yup, sure does spread
2. Shows evidence of purposeful energy transfer... - Yup Metabolic action, conversion of fuel into heat.
3. Responds to stimuli... - "Runs away from extinguishing materials", Check
4. Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation... - See above, spreads, multiplies, kinda like an ant colony.
5. Is significantly different from the surrounding environment... - I'd say so yep.
Now these aren't the definitions i remember I seem to remember metabolic activity as well as a few others that fit in [total of 7 I do believe], but virii don't fit into them. Just shows you how hard it is to truly define life. That was just a bogus example, but you really could make that argument that we've "enslaved" the species known as fire, that is until you go to the second level of attempting to define life which requires it be cellular, or even defining it at the molecular level.
Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?
I should've clarified, I don't like being told what I can do when it harms no one else. To protect the general welfare is the function of governments, to give me a moral code is not. That's the crux of that.
The only issue is whether life begins at conception. If it does, then experiments on a living, unique, human entity is wrong. If it doesn't, then it's not morally wrong.
Doesn't really have to be an issue, if we aren't harming the individual the stem cells are harvested from, as is the case when they are taken from say a liposuction patient. Then it comes down to whether it's okay to break us down into component parts and harvest us. Given the alternatives, I think it's better. This tech needs to develop, and it is a religious issue, unfortunately. They oppose it on ethical grounds, but those ethical grounds are grounded firmly in their theology. It's not saying all life begins at birth and is precious, it's more, do not strip me of the idea that I am special. It's hubris, on both sides.
Isn't that a bridge we should cross when we come to it... I mean why kill the tech in it's childhood. Whose to say we need to apply it to grow whole humans, or in any kind of unethical way. Most of what I've heard on the issue has been more along the lines of organ farming. When you consider where that heart or liver or [insert critically needed organ here] would otherwise have to come from it seems a lot less brutal. Less of a sacrifice of a life to save a life. For some people I think you nailed the issue dead on, but that little voice that says "they're coming to get you barbara" in my head pegs a lot of that paranoia [in terms of general populace] up to ignorance... And where is the strongest bastion of ignorance?
I'll give you a hint, they really, really did not like that astronomer guy, something about heresy.
Oh well, goes to show introduce one of the dreaded three topics and be prepared for the consequences.
This may seem off-topic but with legislation opposing cloning on the footsteps of our capital, I think it bears mention. Why is it I can think of a thousand ways this could benefit people as a whole, but only a few where it would hurt a currently existing human being. While certain aspects of this fledgling science can seem grotesque I just can't help but think that a lot of the opposition comes not from fundamental human beliefs, but more from some kind of right wing perogative to tell me what I can morally do.
I'm really becoming that cynical, but I just can't reconcile religion and politics, or see it as having any place in a political scheme. Yet we have blue laws, nonsensical bans, and it influences policy all the same. Plus I'm sort of fundamentally opposed to Bush, and most republicans in general because of this alignment. Not so much because of their beliefs but because of this percieved and perhaps actual desire they possess to shove them down my throat. In the process they could cost me and my children a cure for cancer, HIV, half a million diseases... who knows. Why the heck is science these days a political issue anyway? It will occur, with or without the political support of those parties...
``The field of human embryonic stem cell research is in its infancy, and will require years of study in laboratories throughout the world, It is critical that scientists be given the opportunity to carry out a broad-based, deep examination of multiple experimental strategies, particularly at this early stage in the evolution of the field.''
That sounds ummm... nefarious, no... scary, no.... Damnit I thought the government was supposed to have neat code names/case names, not irrelavent/inane ones.
Oh well, good for them, nail that annoyance! Now how can we sic 'em on pop unders and pop ups in general?
Mainly due to the product cycles/planning stages of hard disks and cars. Good, last thing we need is people looking at porn AND talking on a cell phone while driving. You need at least one hand free... I swear.
IANAL, but heres the links to what I believe to be the relevant laws comcast may have violated (mainly for being a cable company)
Cable TV Privacy Act of 1994Which in short provides provisions that limit:
(A) the nature of personally identifiable information collected
or to be collected with respect to the subscriber and the nature
of the use of such information;
(B) the nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure which
may be made of such information, including an identification of
the types of persons to whom the disclosure may be made;
(C) the period during which such information will be maintained
by the cable operator;
(D) the times and place at which the subscriber may have access
to such information in accordance with subsection (d) of this
section; and
(E) the limitations provided by this section with respect to
the collection and disclosure of information by a cable operator
and the right of the subscriber under subsections (f) and (h) of
this section to enforce such limitations.
And of course if they customer has a kid under 13 who they gathered data on there was another law I just couldn't quite manage to find in regards to making this pretty illegal. And you can't make your customers opt out of federal law last I checked.
Anyway, it hasn't been my experience that lawyers take cases they have no chance of winning where the payout is based on them winning.
It's what they do with it. I hope redhat sticks to the open source model, but if they need revenues to remain in business we may see them be forced to "villify" themselves. They already seem to at least try to do a lot of good for the opensource community, pushing linux in schools, donating training resources... I think we can cut them a little slack. Yea, I know slippery slope and all that.
Re:How seriously do /. reader's take this.
on
California Hax0red
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
[Note: For those of you who think that people "deserve" to be hacked and that punitive measures shouldn't be necessary should consider this: Is it ok for people to throw bricks through shopwindows just because the store-owners didn't invest in bullet/bomb/brick-proof glass?
At some point we are part of society, and I think this crime is especially bad and should have especially bad repercussions]
Yes, they do deserve to be hacked. It's negligence on the part of the administrators. When you install software and don't properly secure it, to continue your auto analogy, that's the same thing as Ford putting out a car that explodes when you hit it from the rear [See: Pinto]. The only flaw in that argument is that hacking a server requires the intervention of a third party [See also: Person driving car behind the Pinto]. Now this may be a slight stretch but before I get modded down, let me continue.
Personally, I'd like to see this type of thing get 20 years or more of some type of community service in conjunction with jail time. I know it sounds harsh, but this just seems to be major theft to me -- and precisely the type of crime that holds back our industry and the potential for us to finally move to reasonable electronic record-keeping.
All fine and good, but put in exemptions for those who detail how they did it so that it may be fixed... Also hold the system administrators at fault if it was their negligence that caused it. Now I mean GROSS negligence.
Wait, that'd never happen, microsoft owns the US and they have all those MCSEs running around who'd be perfect candidates for jail time if that were implemented. A geek can dream tho...
What do you expect? This is the government, where people are hired on the basis of If they've worked there before, if they've served in the military, and then, just maybe if they're qualified. These people are almost impossible to fire, and are generally ignorant.
My guess is they (Like my state government) were running a bunch of MS NT servers which were never patched, used awful passwords, implemented no access controls, and in general just really screwed the pooch.
Anyone remember when hacking the government seemed like a difficult thing far out of reach? I miss the naivety I had in the 80's....
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a hot swappable drive, it's a person who contributed a great deal to the band over a long time, and lacking that, you'd never find anyone who could play bass like him. Queen couldn't replace Freddy Mercury and the Who can't replace John.
I'm more wondering if this type of system may be suseptable to massive variations in heat, as fluids (even though, yes, glass is a liquid technically) generally expand and contract at temperature gradiants. I don't think this would be a problem underground, or even above ground, but more along the sea floor. Maybe I've been watching too much discovery channel(at 3am of course), but it seems like the sea floor is a pretty intolerant and changing place. So I guess the liquid would have to have the same thermal properties as the glass itself. I'm not sure, the article didn't go into a lot of detail, so anyone have more information?
Why do this give me the image of a group of senators with money stuffed into their pockets as anthropomorphized monkeys doing the see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil faces?
With valenti as the zoo keeper.
"This same institute backed destabilizing, unworkable '80s missile defense and thinks Alexis de Tocqueville would have wanted the V-22 Osprey deathplane."
Nice to see no politics being spouted here.
I wouldn't call that politics, more a statement of fact skewed towards presenting a certain viewpoint... Oh wait, that's spin.
err I'm on crack, that link was supposed to be to hackerslab, not hackersquest... guess I need sleep. I coulda ended up at a porn site.
The concept of buffer overflows - 3rd Semester, 2nd year, CS 221 - Data Structures was when I learned it. Maybe they should force every CS major to complete hackersquest. The majority of that teaches you how to avoid seriously bad coding. Not that it takes bad coding to disrupt a system, viruses/worms can always take advantage of the ignorance of (l)users, and we can't get rid of that. Attachments in email/etc. combined with most of the holes in the HIVs of the computing world (ISS, VB, Windows Scripting Host, Lookout Express) seem to currently be the platform of choice. They're easy to exploit, so why go after the *nix systems? Code Red, Nimda, both took advantage of shoddy coding in the MS Platform.
Earlier I came off as a bit of a troll, but us Linux/BSD people aren't immune to being subverted for a DDOS. At a place I used to work, the management forced the system admins to put a (l)user suggested IRC daemon on our webhost box. That daemon, IRCu, is subject to all sorts of exploits, including one which effectively gives the exploiter root access. We found out this barely monitored box had been compromised (it was our just for play server, ran apache, tripwire, php, perl, ssl and irc) when we recieved a notice of ban from dalnet. Checked the box found an eggdrop that had been installed and then went into the channel it was configured for. Saw a good hundred or so of these bots each one a box that the kiddie had nailed. I'm assuming most of them were *nix, but at least our flaws are from dumbass moves on the part of administrators, and not every admin makes mistakes now and then (I hope).
And an alternative point can be made as well, every time one of these worms goes rampant throughout the internet, it may affect us, but it should in theory hurt Microsoft more. I wouldn't be surprised if one of the reasons why a lot of companies are migrating away from NT is because of these ISS and VB holes. So while it may hurt us in the short term, it will hurt those who put out shoddy software more in the long term.
They should just rename VB Support HIV, same effect on a computer immune system.
I got scared for a second, then did a google search for identified linux worms, thought about how many times I've never caught one, and promptly became glad my OS isn't mainstream.
Heres a link to the marines making marine doom: here.
So does fire, and you're missing out on virii and the secondary definitions of life [cellular or molecular, I can't remember been a looonnng time since bio]. That's the classic argument:
Fire:
1. Shows evidence of growth and replication - Yup, sure does spread
2. Shows evidence of purposeful energy transfer... - Yup Metabolic action, conversion of fuel into heat.
3. Responds to stimuli... - "Runs away from extinguishing materials", Check
4. Acts in such a way as to ensure self-preservation... - See above, spreads, multiplies, kinda like an ant colony.
5. Is significantly different from the surrounding environment... - I'd say so yep.
Now these aren't the definitions i remember I seem to remember metabolic activity as well as a few others that fit in [total of 7 I do believe], but virii don't fit into them. Just shows you how hard it is to truly define life. That was just a bogus example, but you really could make that argument that we've "enslaved" the species known as fire, that is until you go to the second level of attempting to define life which requires it be cellular, or even defining it at the molecular level.
Our legislators seriously need to get a clue. But you already knew that :)
If you didn't here's a link to copy of our president's transcript to prove it: here
Society tells you what you can and can't do every day, yes, even morally. Get used to it. For example, society considers it illegal AND immoral to sexually assault someone. But gee, who are they to tell YOU what to do, right?
I should've clarified, I don't like being told what I can do when it harms no one else. To protect the general welfare is the function of governments, to give me a moral code is not. That's the crux of that.
The only issue is whether life begins at conception. If it does, then experiments on a living, unique, human entity is wrong. If it doesn't, then it's not morally wrong.
Doesn't really have to be an issue, if we aren't harming the individual the stem cells are harvested from, as is the case when they are taken from say a liposuction patient. Then it comes down to whether it's okay to break us down into component parts and harvest us. Given the alternatives, I think it's better. This tech needs to develop, and it is a religious issue, unfortunately. They oppose it on ethical grounds, but those ethical grounds are grounded firmly in their theology. It's not saying all life begins at birth and is precious, it's more, do not strip me of the idea that I am special. It's hubris, on both sides.
Isn't that a bridge we should cross when we come to it... I mean why kill the tech in it's childhood. Whose to say we need to apply it to grow whole humans, or in any kind of unethical way. Most of what I've heard on the issue has been more along the lines of organ farming. When you consider where that heart or liver or [insert critically needed organ here] would otherwise have to come from it seems a lot less brutal. Less of a sacrifice of a life to save a life. For some people I think you nailed the issue dead on, but that little voice that says "they're coming to get you barbara" in my head pegs a lot of that paranoia [in terms of general populace] up to ignorance... And where is the strongest bastion of ignorance?
I'll give you a hint, they really, really did not like that astronomer guy, something about heresy.
Oh well, goes to show introduce one of the dreaded three topics and be prepared for the consequences.
This may seem off-topic but with legislation opposing cloning on the footsteps of our capital, I think it bears mention. Why is it I can think of a thousand ways this could benefit people as a whole, but only a few where it would hurt a currently existing human being. While certain aspects of this fledgling science can seem grotesque I just can't help but think that a lot of the opposition comes not from fundamental human beliefs, but more from some kind of right wing perogative to tell me what I can morally do.
I'm really becoming that cynical, but I just can't reconcile religion and politics, or see it as having any place in a political scheme. Yet we have blue laws, nonsensical bans, and it influences policy all the same. Plus I'm sort of fundamentally opposed to Bush, and most republicans in general because of this alignment. Not so much because of their beliefs but because of this percieved and perhaps actual desire they possess to shove them down my throat. In the process they could cost me and my children a cure for cancer, HIV, half a million diseases... who knows. Why the heck is science these days a political issue anyway? It will occur, with or without the political support of those parties...
``The field of human embryonic stem cell research is in its infancy, and will require years of study in laboratories throughout the world, It is critical that scientists be given the opportunity to carry out a broad-based, deep examination of multiple experimental strategies, particularly at this early stage in the evolution of the field.''
That sounds ummm... nefarious, no... scary, no.... Damnit I thought the government was supposed to have neat code names/case names, not irrelavent/inane ones. Oh well, good for them, nail that annoyance! Now how can we sic 'em on pop unders and pop ups in general?
Mainly due to the product cycles/planning stages of hard disks and cars. Good, last thing we need is people looking at porn AND talking on a cell phone while driving. You need at least one hand free... I swear.
IANAL, but heres the links to what I believe to be the relevant laws comcast may have violated (mainly for being a cable company) Cable TV Privacy Act of 1994Which in short provides provisions that limit:
(A) the nature of personally identifiable information collected or to be collected with respect to the subscriber and the nature of the use of such information;
(B) the nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure which may be made of such information, including an identification of the types of persons to whom the disclosure may be made;
(C) the period during which such information will be maintained by the cable operator;
(D) the times and place at which the subscriber may have access to such information in accordance with subsection (d) of this section; and
(E) the limitations provided by this section with respect to the collection and disclosure of information by a cable operator and the right of the subscriber under subsections (f) and (h) of this section to enforce such limitations.
As well if I'm not incorrect here,the ECPA
More fun privacy law here, Privacy Act of 1974
And of course if they customer has a kid under 13 who they gathered data on there was another law I just couldn't quite manage to find in regards to making this pretty illegal. And you can't make your customers opt out of federal law last I checked.
Anyway, it hasn't been my experience that lawyers take cases they have no chance of winning where the payout is based on them winning.
It's what they do with it. I hope redhat sticks to the open source model, but if they need revenues to remain in business we may see them be forced to "villify" themselves. They already seem to at least try to do a lot of good for the opensource community, pushing linux in schools, donating training resources... I think we can cut them a little slack. Yea, I know slippery slope and all that.
[Note: For those of you who think that people "deserve" to be hacked and that punitive measures shouldn't be necessary should consider this: Is it ok for people to throw bricks through shopwindows just because the store-owners didn't invest in bullet/bomb/brick-proof glass? At some point we are part of society, and I think this crime is especially bad and should have especially bad repercussions]
Yes, they do deserve to be hacked. It's negligence on the part of the administrators. When you install software and don't properly secure it, to continue your auto analogy, that's the same thing as Ford putting out a car that explodes when you hit it from the rear [See: Pinto]. The only flaw in that argument is that hacking a server requires the intervention of a third party [See also: Person driving car behind the Pinto]. Now this may be a slight stretch but before I get modded down, let me continue.
Personally, I'd like to see this type of thing get 20 years or more of some type of community service in conjunction with jail time. I know it sounds harsh, but this just seems to be major theft to me -- and precisely the type of crime that holds back our industry and the potential for us to finally move to reasonable electronic record-keeping.
All fine and good, but put in exemptions for those who detail how they did it so that it may be fixed... Also hold the system administrators at fault if it was their negligence that caused it. Now I mean GROSS negligence.
Wait, that'd never happen, microsoft owns the US and they have all those MCSEs running around who'd be perfect candidates for jail time if that were implemented. A geek can dream tho...
What do you expect? This is the government, where people are hired on the basis of If they've worked there before, if they've served in the military, and then, just maybe if they're qualified. These people are almost impossible to fire, and are generally ignorant. My guess is they (Like my state government) were running a bunch of MS NT servers which were never patched, used awful passwords, implemented no access controls, and in general just really screwed the pooch. Anyone remember when hacking the government seemed like a difficult thing far out of reach? I miss the naivety I had in the 80's....