This problem has another form, too. More of an extension of it, I guess. I have a domain hosted in the fashion you mentioned; however, due to restrictions on accounts provided by Earthlink, the ISP I am currently forced to use (only thing really available in my area), I *must* use their SMTP servers, their filtering technologies prevent me from using the SMTP server provided by my domain hoster. So, in short, wide acceptance of SPF will screw me from being able to send emails *from* my hosted email addresses.
Innovation maybe? Perhaps he lacks the ingenuity to come up with the next big thing in broadcast (assuming such a thing exists), but he certainly doesn't lack the funding to cash in on it when it comes around. With so many media conglomerates, we're seeing repitition of the same broadcast programming, the only differences are the actors cast during the given iteration. When an industry becomes stifled, it will begin to become unprofitable. Maybe Mr. Turner sees this and is hoping a bust of major conglomerates will introduce independent players who will bring innovative ideas to the forum, which he and his buddies can cash in on for the next 30 years.
Re:poetry? Music?
on
Hacker Survey
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I think "code choreographer" meets the goal of sounding "more faggy"
It is rather "slender" as far as distros go, but that was its intent, I think. This is not the distro for people who want to dive head first into OSS and GNU/Linux, this is the distro for people who want something familiar, yet don't want to get locked into a proprietary platform that may or may not be getting ready to unleash wicked licensing terms and unfair DRM tools.
I'm also kind of curious to see if Symantec creates a new privacy policy for BugTraq. Maybe BugTraq could become like so many other net services.
"We'll provide content, but first, how about an advertisement from one of our partners"
It's probably key to note that any changes Symantec brings to BugTraq probably won't come for a bit of time, most likely after Symantec is fairly certain that die-hard security folks have bailled on bugtraq, so they can put spin on "A new and improved security forum" while losing as little face as possible.
One of the most important goals of our commercial sector is to generate revenue. From prostitution to selling of bunk software, they'll do it anyway they can, so this story shouldn't surprise anyone. In fact, it's really not even a story.
The only thing that makes this "slashdot worthy" is the fact that it's our companies promoting censorship, which red-blooded Americans view as a tatic of the Reds.
Bear in mind, however, that not all countries, or citizens of those countries, agree with this. Morever, some countries can, literally, collapse when a new and unfamiliar system is imposed. For a good example of this, look at what happened to Russia when they dabled briefly in capitalism.
If we can't even come up with a clear and concise definition of what constitutes human life (in the case of abortion laws) what makes you think we can do this?
The term terrorist, in the US, is simply serving as a synonym for anyone who opposes US legislation through any violent, or potentially violent means.
"Not the same code base, but it's the same language specification, as C is C then Cg is Cg."
And we find with Microsoft's Visual C++, they do not support some common C++ standards natively. Should we expect Microsoft's Cg variant to be non-complient with nVidia's Cg standard too?
"Pandering media hype isn't new to people who've been on the Net or the Web."
If media hype isn't new to any of us on the 'net', and slashdot users are, by definition on the 'net', then how does this constitute news in any way to any of the slashdot audience? You have, less than elegantly, restated the obvious for us. This piece would be at least somewhat interesting if it were run on a regular news broadcast; however, anyone familiar with slashdot is already familiar with the injustices committed in America in the name of the all-mighty dollar.
So, I'll ask again, why have you wasted space with something that is useless to this audience?
Oso many people in this forum bitch and moan about the attrocities committed by MS under the iron fist of Senior Gates, and yet so many people demonstrate precisely the same mentality: Boff whoever it takes to get to the top, backs will be bruised, but as long as it's not mine, who cares.
This paints a picture of children who are not mad because Microsoft has unfair practices, but are upset because they did not think of it first.
Or, perhaps the bitchers are just unhappy employees of the food service industry, making $5.50 per hour serving burgers with a smile, hoping the day might come that they too will be gods of the arena, bullying lesser geeks to do their bidding and secretly putting together an action movie on company money.
GOBBLES submitted a proof of concept apache exploit for BSD variants on the BugTraq mailing list.
Based on this string found in the chunk overflow request:
BLE*h*GOB
I would argue that this code was very sloppy indeed. Probably stolen mostly from Gobbles with a worm wrapper thrown around it.
And how does microsoft plan to establish any serious trust with Palladium?
Given their past endevours, there's probably a better than even chance that the first version (or perhaps first several versions) of the Palladium schema will be vulnerable to buffer overflows, improper processing of malformed data, etc. The end result being that systems that are supposedly "tight" may very well be compromised, which is twice as dangerous as a normal machine being compromised.
If you are dealing with a regular system that's been compromised and you are unaware of the compromise, you're level of trust in the system isn't necessarily high. However, if you're dealing with a system that's assuring you it's secure, you're probably more apt to trust it when in fact it too is compromised.
It's analogous to being sheisted by someone you've never met before versus being sheisted by your grandmother, I suppose...
Interestingly enough, if you look at the graph on page one of the WashingtonPost article, it resembles a logistics curve, typically population predictor.
In 1994, the Internet was not widely used, it's been growing, like any other population, and all that graph indicates is that there a fairly consistent percentage of the population that engages in "net attacks"
Slashdot Mirror
This problem has another form, too. More of an extension of it, I guess. I have a domain hosted in the fashion you mentioned; however, due to restrictions on accounts provided by Earthlink, the ISP I am currently forced to use (only thing really available in my area), I *must* use their SMTP servers, their filtering technologies prevent me from using the SMTP server provided by my domain hoster. So, in short, wide acceptance of SPF will screw me from being able to send emails *from* my hosted email addresses.
Innovation maybe? Perhaps he lacks the ingenuity to come up with the next big thing in broadcast (assuming such a thing exists), but he certainly doesn't lack the funding to cash in on it when it comes around. With so many media conglomerates, we're seeing repitition of the same broadcast programming, the only differences are the actors cast during the given iteration. When an industry becomes stifled, it will begin to become unprofitable. Maybe Mr. Turner sees this and is hoping a bust of major conglomerates will introduce independent players who will bring innovative ideas to the forum, which he and his buddies can cash in on for the next 30 years.
I think "code choreographer" meets the goal of sounding "more faggy"
It is rather "slender" as far as distros go,
but that was its intent, I think. This is not
the distro for people who want to dive head first
into OSS and GNU/Linux, this is the distro for
people who want something familiar, yet don't want
to get locked into a proprietary platform that
may or may not be getting ready to unleash wicked
licensing terms and unfair DRM tools.
I'm also kind of curious to see if
Symantec creates a new privacy policy
for BugTraq. Maybe BugTraq could become
like so many other net services.
"We'll provide content, but first, how
about an advertisement from one of our
partners"
It's probably key to note that any changes
Symantec brings to BugTraq probably won't come
for a bit of time, most likely after Symantec
is fairly certain that die-hard security folks
have bailled on bugtraq, so they can put spin
on "A new and improved security forum" while
losing as little face as possible.
One of the most important goals of
our commercial sector is to generate
revenue. From prostitution to selling
of bunk software, they'll do it anyway
they can, so this story shouldn't surprise
anyone. In fact, it's really not even a story.
The only thing that makes this "slashdot worthy"
is the fact that it's our companies promoting
censorship, which red-blooded Americans view
as a tatic of the Reds.
Bear in mind, however, that not all countries,
or citizens of those countries, agree with this.
Morever, some countries can, literally, collapse
when a new and unfamiliar system is imposed.
For a good example of this, look at what happened
to Russia when they dabled briefly in capitalism.
If we can't even come up with a clear and concise definition of what constitutes human life (in the case of abortion laws) what makes you think we can do this?
The term terrorist, in the US, is simply serving as a synonym for anyone who opposes US legislation through any violent, or potentially violent means.
"Not the same code base, but it's the same language specification, as C is C then Cg is Cg."
And we find with Microsoft's Visual C++, they do not support some common C++ standards natively. Should we expect Microsoft's Cg variant to be non-complient with nVidia's Cg standard too?
"Pandering media hype isn't new to people who've been on the Net or the Web."
If media hype isn't new to any of us on the 'net', and slashdot users are, by definition on the 'net', then how does this constitute news in any way to any of the slashdot audience? You have, less than elegantly, restated the obvious for us. This piece would be at least somewhat interesting if it were run on a regular news broadcast; however, anyone familiar with slashdot is already familiar with the injustices committed in America in the name of the all-mighty dollar.
So, I'll ask again, why have you wasted space with something that is useless to this audience?
You're absolutely right.
Oso many people in this forum bitch and moan about the attrocities committed by MS under the iron fist of Senior Gates, and yet so many people demonstrate precisely the same mentality: Boff whoever it takes to get to the top, backs will be bruised, but as long as it's not mine, who cares.
This paints a picture of children who are not mad because Microsoft has unfair practices, but are upset because they did not think of it first.
Or, perhaps the bitchers are just unhappy employees of the food service industry, making $5.50 per hour serving burgers with a smile, hoping the day might come that they too will be gods of the arena, bullying lesser geeks to do their bidding and secretly putting together an action movie on company money.
#declare TRUE 1
#declare FALSE 0
rather.
Try putting: #declare TRUE 1 #declare FALSE 0 near the top of the mod_blowchunks.c file.
GOBBLES submitted a proof of concept apache exploit for BSD variants on the BugTraq mailing list. Based on this string found in the chunk overflow request: BLE*h*GOB I would argue that this code was very sloppy indeed. Probably stolen mostly from Gobbles with a worm wrapper thrown around it.
And how does microsoft plan to establish any serious trust with Palladium? Given their past endevours, there's probably a better than even chance that the first version (or perhaps first several versions) of the Palladium schema will be vulnerable to buffer overflows, improper processing of malformed data, etc. The end result being that systems that are supposedly "tight" may very well be compromised, which is twice as dangerous as a normal machine being compromised. If you are dealing with a regular system that's been compromised and you are unaware of the compromise, you're level of trust in the system isn't necessarily high. However, if you're dealing with a system that's assuring you it's secure, you're probably more apt to trust it when in fact it too is compromised. It's analogous to being sheisted by someone you've never met before versus being sheisted by your grandmother, I suppose...
Interestingly enough, if you look at the graph on page one of the WashingtonPost article, it resembles a logistics curve, typically population predictor. In 1994, the Internet was not widely used, it's been growing, like any other population, and all that graph indicates is that there a fairly consistent percentage of the population that engages in "net attacks"