>>>Well, getting them to run on those PCs by tweaking autoexec.bat and config.sys files
Should have bought an Atari, Commodore, or Amiga. These computers were plug-and-play simple and didn't make you dick around with that shit. You just inserted the game, typed LOAD, and played. Even today I still can't get the Wing Commander 1 and 2 to operate on a PC
Dosbox FTW. Yes, you sometimes have to dick around with it, but you can play tons of old games with it. Go to http://www.abandonia.com/ or similar sites, download a few of your old favourites (WC, Master of Magic, etc) and enjoy them with Dosbox.
http://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1
In any case, whether heavy objects fall faster than light ones is tangential to the story. Many studies are wrong, some are pointless, but most have some relation to objective reality even if they can only simulate or deal with analagous cases. In order to meet my biological goals, I now know not to flail my arms and legs, so the study has value to me.
Whether or not physicists will come to valid scientific or academic conclusions on soft arts (sociology, psychology), or whether the conclusions of this study are valid, at least one of the authors is recognizable as someone with quite a bit of credibility in a nascent field. He is a contributing author at http://terranova.blogs.com/ where many Virtual academics reside (e.g., Edward Castranova and Richard Bartle, who are contributing to legal and sociological aspects of Virtual Worlds) and he created and maintained a (now hibernating) website, The Daedalus Project ( http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/ ) , which explored the sociology of MMORPGs.
Check his bio at http://www.nickyee.com/ I'd say he's worth listening to, at least WRT virtual groups. And maybe so are some of the other contributors.
This debate should have nothing to do with obscenity or what people do while at work. It's about privacy.
Here's my letter to the GM at the newspaper: please send along your view too. generalmanager@stltoday.com
"I hope you understand the chill that the actions of your employee have put on people who might post on your site. What is especially noxious is that it was done by someone whose role is to better understand these issues.
If it was your intention to stifle comment in what is a new and growing segment of journalism, you have succeeded. The fact that Kurt has stated that he has NOT contravened your paper's policies is astounding, especially as there doesn't seem to be any legal backing for his assertion. Judging by standard logic, common sense, or the apparent spirit of your privacy policy, his actions were against the policy. I would guess that you will find that they were against the best interest of your organization.
I made a single post as a comment on your site, with an email address, and am now emailing you from that address. It would be easy to identify me. In the back of my mind, I thought when posting and am thinking now while hitting send: what might they do with MY information, even though I have done nothing wrong?
Your organization took clear, active steps that went outside of your own stated policy that is there to protect your clients. Shame."
I'm usually looking for ctrl-f (find in most M$ products) so that I can scan printed materials more quickly. Unfortunately, the book / newspaper / magazine isn't usually very accommodating.
No one feels sorry for the spammers but my guess is there WILL be legit companies getting the SDDoS (Semi DDoS) attack.
More importantly, how about a link in the Slashdot article to the content of the story (Lycos hacked)? All of the links in the submission are to the old news. I had to Google to find out the details of what the original poster was typing about....
Actually, there is an error, even if it's a real word in the wrong context: "With respect to the age at which individuals should be eligible for the death penalty, Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue." I wonder if the pigeons will be shitting all over that "statue".
BTW, does anyone know if that is the case? I thought you COULD be executed for crimes committed as a minor.
But seriously, what does this mean for LCOS? Manufacturers (e.g., Philips and Fujitsu) are still making and selling LCOS TVs or working on the technology. Does it just mean that they won't get as cheap as fast?
Try Dog the Bounty Hunter. Someone showed me this guy's site today. Apparently, he's the "greatest bounty hunter in the world." It's kind of a funny site, too: "Six men can carry you or 12 men can judge you. You decide!" -- a Dogism. Maybe Sal's under this guy's radar, but....
Well, whether or not you can make THAT up, Amazon says that Microsofties favourite music is Bruddah Iz: "Israel 'IZ' Kamakawiwo'ole", a dead guy from Hawaii that was 1,000 lbs at the time of his death.
Apparently, this dude is one of the most popular artists with iTunes too. So what does that say about Microsofties listening habits? I'm sure his music is OK, but would new age covers of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow/What a Wonderful World" help keep you focused if you were busy coding like a fiend in a caffeine-induced fervour?
the average duration of a reversal is close to 7,000 years. The analysis further suggests that the timescale of the transition differs at various latitudes. During the last polarity shift, approximately 790,000 years ago, sites close to the equator underwent the 180-degree change over the course of 2,000 years, but the process took closer to 10,000 years in midlatitude regions.
The phrase is not generally meant for customers. It's for developers, testers, and project managers: the entire development team. It has nothing to do with marketing. Yes a USER might become confused. A developer that has read the links posted and understands them will understand the difference.
Of course there should be a balance between development time and squashing bugs, and ZDSD takes that into account. Read the above links. Read Steve McConnell, Rapid Development, PP.69-71: a 95% defect-removed rate appears to be optimal from the perspective of schedule, effort, and user satisfaction. Removing defects EARLIER IN THE PROCESS is the goal, a goal which also reduces cost, user satisfaction, and schedule. Reworking a requirements defect which has made it to production costs 50 - 200 times that of reworking the problem DURING the requirements phase. There's hard data on this from 1988 and probably earlier: 60% of all defects exist at design time. So again, we're talking about DEFECTS, not "bugs". A wrong requirement isn't a "bug". The rate chosen will also depend on the application: a nuclear power plant should have a different defect rate than Joe Six-Pack's personal web page.
To make the point: the concept is aimed at those PRODUCING a product, not those CONSUMING it. Yes, those that use the term to sell to people who won't properly understand the term shouldn't do so. A DEVELOPER should understand its context in the SDLC.
OTOH, maybe I do. The answer supplied in the parent to your post properly answered the grandparent post, i.e., how do you fix the server issue and how do you know if you've been compromised. If you look at the link supplied, you'll note that it links to Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-013 as well as Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-011, in addition to suggestions as to how to make the client more secure.
I also linked to the storm centre which has additional information. Perhaps I assumed that someone busy patching a bunch of servers is capable of reading and following a link.
Actually, much of the rest of the world DOES believe that "Zero defects does not mean that the product does not have bugs". Emphasis in quotations mine.
Definition of Zero-Defect. "an aspect of total quality management that stresses the objective of error-free performance in providing goods or services"
Six sigma's take on Zero Defect that states: "A practice that aims to reduce defects as a way to directly increase profits. The concept of zero defects lead to the development of Six Sigma in the 1980s."
10 rules for ZDSD: "Not to be taken as meaning 'bug-free,' Zero-Defect Software Development (ZDSD) is a practice of developing software that is maintained in the highest quality state throughout the entire development process."
I'm sorry, I can't tell every customer to switch browsers. I can't even get my internal users to switch. Most can't, because of some oddly coded piece of software that only runs in IE. My point is, my boxen might be infected right now. Not caught by AV software, how am I supposed to determine whether this thing lives on my server?
Have you heard of the SDLC? No? There's a whole section there on analyzing the requirements. Your suggestion is just more FUD and not answering the question. I hope it'll be modded as redundant because about 15 other slashdotters have already suggested your solution to the base problem. In fact, the VERY FIRST POST suggests a similar fix.
The Internet Storm Centre has good information about what will be on your box if you're already infected.
One reader (thanks, Ben!) submitted a list of files found on his compromised IIS server. The files he sent us included:
Code snippits.doc
iis6xx.dll (multiple copies, where xx varies)
iis7yy.dll (multiple copies, where yy varies)
Download_Ject_Symantec.doc
ipaddress.txt
issue.csv
ads.vbs
agent.exe
ftpcmd.txt
security_log.rtf
I think they're in \winnt\system32\inetsrv
Sorry about the duped links but more fixes, less FUD please. Yes, evil empire blah blah blah, but how about we tell people how to fix the problem instead?
Here's where SCO gets its logic from: How To Argue and How To Be Persuasive. I'm pretty sure they weren't reading up on Sophistry, but they might want to take a look.
All we probably need to do whenever we see SCO FUD is to have a quick look at a small selection of natural fallacies. This should clear things up quickly.
So, shall I gratuitously quote the Wookie defense, because that's probably all SCO has going for it now?
"Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a wookie, from the planet Kishik. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. That does not make sense.
Why would a wookie, an 8 foot tall wookie, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more importantly, you must ask yourself: what does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, it has nothing to do with this case. Look at me, I'm a lawyer, [prosecuting] a [auto company], and I'm talking about Chewbacca. I am not making any sense. None of this makes any sense.
So, when you're in that jury room debating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, you must ask yourself this question: Does it make sense?
No. It does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must [convict]. The [prosecution] rests."
I dunno, I just had a look at those graphs. It sure looks to me like there's a significant upturn in transfer rates starting shortly after the article's posting (at 1:21 PM) on about 8 out of 16 of those graphs... though I'm not sure what time zone the stats are from (not mentioned, even in the detail screen: they say "The statistics were last updated Monday, 1 March 2004 at 14:20". Good uptime on the servers, though: 202 days...
"We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known," he said.
Umm, that WAS in the article. Are you saying there's a difference between "was known" and "appears"?
In the article, it seems quite clear that what they're saying is that most exploits come after the hackers have had a chance to compare patched VS unpatched systems to see what the changes are. But it's not just Microsoft saying this:
"It's a myth that hackers find the holes," said Nigel Beighton, who runs a research project for security firm Symantec.
In other words, I can see the point of view expressed in the article. I disagree with the parent in part (I think the attribution in the Slashdot story is sufficiently accurate) but that the specific (never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known) is probably hyperbole. Hackers might be lazy, but they're not non-existent. There's no way M$ could even KNOW how many exploits have been made.
Here's another (I found the form all on my own: it was my first instinct. I love giving feedback about stupid sh*t.)
I am sure that you are getting a number of comments about the related story, "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty".
"There seems little doubt that SCO was targeted... because it has enraged many people devoted to the Linux operating system.... internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all"
Mr Evans repeatedly states that there is no evidence. Given this, why does he repeatedly link Linux users with this particular virus? Is this an editorial piece? It's certainly not factual.
I'm a windows user. I hate SCO because of their business practices, hypocrisy, and manipulation of the stock market, not because they're targeting Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>Well, getting them to run on those PCs by tweaking autoexec.bat and config.sys files
Should have bought an Atari, Commodore, or Amiga. These computers were plug-and-play simple and didn't make you dick around with that shit. You just inserted the game, typed LOAD, and played. Even today I still can't get the Wing Commander 1 and 2 to operate on a PC
Dosbox FTW. Yes, you sometimes have to dick around with it, but you can play tons of old games with it. Go to http://www.abandonia.com/ or similar sites, download a few of your old favourites (WC, Master of Magic, etc) and enjoy them with Dosbox. http://www.dosbox.com/download.php?main=1
Discussion thread including math for why heavier objects fall faster because of earth gravity (normally imperceptible except with massive objects):
http://iopscience.iop.org/0143-0807/8/2/006
How quantum mechanics says that heavy objects fall faster:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=39234
In any case, whether heavy objects fall faster than light ones is tangential to the story. Many studies are wrong, some are pointless, but most have some relation to objective reality even if they can only simulate or deal with analagous cases. In order to meet my biological goals, I now know not to flail my arms and legs, so the study has value to me.
The hex clock is WAY cooler than this. And less creepy.
http://www.intuitor.com/hex/hexclock.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexadecimal_time
Also available at Nick Yee's site in case someone's server gets /.ed.
http://www.nickyee.com/pubs/Johnson%20et%20al%20-%20Gangs%20(2009).pdf
Whether or not physicists will come to valid scientific or academic conclusions on soft arts (sociology, psychology), or whether the conclusions of this study are valid, at least one of the authors is recognizable as someone with quite a bit of credibility in a nascent field. He is a contributing author at http://terranova.blogs.com/ where many Virtual academics reside (e.g., Edward Castranova and Richard Bartle, who are contributing to legal and sociological aspects of Virtual Worlds) and he created and maintained a (now hibernating) website, The Daedalus Project ( http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/ ) , which explored the sociology of MMORPGs.
Check his bio at http://www.nickyee.com/ I'd say he's worth listening to, at least WRT virtual groups. And maybe so are some of the other contributors.
Here's my letter to the GM at the newspaper: please send along your view too. generalmanager@stltoday.com
"I hope you understand the chill that the actions of your employee have put on people who might post on your site. What is especially noxious is that it was done by someone whose role is to better understand these issues.
If it was your intention to stifle comment in what is a new and growing segment of journalism, you have succeeded. The fact that Kurt has stated that he has NOT contravened your paper's policies is astounding, especially as there doesn't seem to be any legal backing for his assertion. Judging by standard logic, common sense, or the apparent spirit of your privacy policy, his actions were against the policy. I would guess that you will find that they were against the best interest of your organization.
I made a single post as a comment on your site, with an email address, and am now emailing you from that address. It would be easy to identify me. In the back of my mind, I thought when posting and am thinking now while hitting send: what might they do with MY information, even though I have done nothing wrong?
Your organization took clear, active steps that went outside of your own stated policy that is there to protect your clients. Shame."
I'm usually looking for ctrl-f (find in most M$ products) so that I can scan printed materials more quickly. Unfortunately, the book / newspaper / magazine isn't usually very accommodating.
No one feels sorry for the spammers but my guess is there WILL be legit companies getting the SDDoS (Semi DDoS) attack.
More importantly, how about a link in the Slashdot article to the content of the story (Lycos hacked)? All of the links in the submission are to the old news. I had to Google to find out the details of what the original poster was typing about....
Actually, there is an error, even if it's a real word in the wrong context: "With respect to the age at which individuals should be eligible for the death penalty, Federal law prohibits execution of those under 18 when the offense was committed, and I see no reason to change that statue." I wonder if the pigeons will be shitting all over that "statue".
BTW, does anyone know if that is the case? I thought you COULD be executed for crimes committed as a minor.
So much for Intel's Commitment to LCOS and the Future of HDTV.
But seriously, what does this mean for LCOS? Manufacturers (e.g., Philips and Fujitsu) are still making and selling LCOS TVs or working on the technology. Does it just mean that they won't get as cheap as fast?
Try Dog the Bounty Hunter. Someone showed me this guy's site today. Apparently, he's the "greatest bounty hunter in the world." It's kind of a funny site, too: "Six men can carry you or 12 men can judge you. You decide!" -- a Dogism. Maybe Sal's under this guy's radar, but....
Well, whether or not you can make THAT up, Amazon says that Microsofties favourite music is Bruddah Iz: "Israel 'IZ' Kamakawiwo'ole", a dead guy from Hawaii that was 1,000 lbs at the time of his death.
Apparently, this dude is one of the most popular artists with iTunes too. So what does that say about Microsofties listening habits? I'm sure his music is OK, but would new age covers of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow/What a Wonderful World" help keep you focused if you were busy coding like a fiend in a caffeine-induced fervour?
The phrase is not generally meant for customers. It's for developers, testers, and project managers: the entire development team. It has nothing to do with marketing. Yes a USER might become confused. A developer that has read the links posted and understands them will understand the difference.
Of course there should be a balance between development time and squashing bugs, and ZDSD takes that into account. Read the above links. Read Steve McConnell, Rapid Development, PP.69-71: a 95% defect-removed rate appears to be optimal from the perspective of schedule, effort, and user satisfaction. Removing defects EARLIER IN THE PROCESS is the goal, a goal which also reduces cost, user satisfaction, and schedule. Reworking a requirements defect which has made it to production costs 50 - 200 times that of reworking the problem DURING the requirements phase. There's hard data on this from 1988 and probably earlier: 60% of all defects exist at design time. So again, we're talking about DEFECTS, not "bugs". A wrong requirement isn't a "bug". The rate chosen will also depend on the application: a nuclear power plant should have a different defect rate than Joe Six-Pack's personal web page.
To make the point: the concept is aimed at those PRODUCING a product, not those CONSUMING it. Yes, those that use the term to sell to people who won't properly understand the term shouldn't do so. A DEVELOPER should understand its context in the SDLC.
OTOH, maybe I do. The answer supplied in the parent to your post properly answered the grandparent post, i.e., how do you fix the server issue and how do you know if you've been compromised. If you look at the link supplied, you'll note that it links to Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-013 as well as Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-011, in addition to suggestions as to how to make the client more secure.
I also linked to the storm centre which has additional information. Perhaps I assumed that someone busy patching a bunch of servers is capable of reading and following a link.
How the parent post got +5 I have no idea....
Actually, much of the rest of the world DOES believe that "Zero defects does not mean that the product does not have bugs". Emphasis in quotations mine.
Definition of Zero-Defect. "an aspect of total quality management that stresses the objective of error-free performance in providing goods or services"
Six sigma's take on Zero Defect that states: "A practice that aims to reduce defects as a way to directly increase profits. The concept of zero defects lead to the development of Six Sigma in the 1980s."
Here's an explanation of why people are confused about the subject. Yes, it's an M$ site.
10 rules for ZDSD: "Not to be taken as meaning 'bug-free,' Zero-Defect Software Development (ZDSD) is a practice of developing software that is maintained in the highest quality state throughout the entire development process."
The Internet Storm Centre has good information about what will be on your box if you're already infected. I think they're in \winnt\system32\inetsrv
Sorry about the duped links but more fixes, less FUD please. Yes, evil empire blah blah blah, but how about we tell people how to fix the problem instead?
-
How to Argue
-
How to be Persuasive
-
How to Make Friends at Work
Or just Insult Monger, you malodourous toad?All we probably need to do whenever we see SCO FUD is to have a quick look at a small selection of natural fallacies. This should clear things up quickly.
So, shall I gratuitously quote the Wookie defense, because that's probably all SCO has going for it now?
I dunno, I just had a look at those graphs. It sure looks to me like there's a significant upturn in transfer rates starting shortly after the article's posting (at 1:21 PM) on about 8 out of 16 of those graphs... though I'm not sure what time zone the stats are from (not mentioned, even in the detail screen: they say "The statistics were last updated Monday, 1 March 2004 at 14:20". Good uptime on the servers, though: 202 days...
In the article, it seems quite clear that what they're saying is that most exploits come after the hackers have had a chance to compare patched VS unpatched systems to see what the changes are. But it's not just Microsoft saying this: In other words, I can see the point of view expressed in the article. I disagree with the parent in part (I think the attribution in the Slashdot story is sufficiently accurate) but that the specific (never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known) is probably hyperbole. Hackers might be lazy, but they're not non-existent. There's no way M$ could even KNOW how many exploits have been made.
After all, "The second best policy is dishonesty."
"Have you READ ./ recently?"
What's dotslash? Does that mean web servers are getting dot-slashed all day?