What country's law applies on board of an airplane, say for example, crossing the Atlantic?
The law of the country where the airplane is registered, of the destination,...? AFAIK the law of the country the airplane is registered, just as with ships.
However, what if I leave a ship for a swim in international waters, and someone from another ship (registered in another country) does the same, and then he steals something from me? Which law would apply there?
Please note that I don't not necessarily believe in the above statement it is just for argument purposes. If god existed, he wouldn't have allowed you to post that second line. Therefore god does not exist.:-)
How long before some enterprising teacher makes being an arguer on Turk an assignment? Would arguing about that assignment be considered an acceptable substitute?
He's just a fucking script kiddie as far as I'm concerned. Real men mine and smelt their own metal. Consumer metal bought over the counter just doesn't offer enough customisability if you really want to do a project like this right. Kids these days... real men wouldn't just mine ready-to-smelt metals, they would fuse them from protons in their own home-built stars!
Even more importantly, can't you guys realise that none of these jokes are funny? Sorry, the fun flag has not yet been implemented on this processor. Therefore it's not yet possible to determine which jokes are funny. While there already exists a jnf instruction (jump if not funny), it currently does nothing. We do have code like the following, though:
; post joke if funny
test joke
jnf.nopost
call post_joke .nopost: ; continue reading slashdot
It's all reminiscent of the Hitch-hiker's Guide, actually, since Wolfram is effectively saying that you can extrapolate all possible states of the Universe from a piece of fairy cake, then build an artificial Universe that is equivalent to the real one. Then, presumably, you can do any scientific research from the comfort of your office, and still be able to go to parties in the evening. Sounds great, if unlikely.
You mean, Wolfram is currently working on the ultimate torture device?
By the time such computer exist, Vista's successor will use all of that computing power. No, that's not true. There will still be enough power left to run your AV program.
But you can read as many good books about golf as you want, or ask the best golf players in the world about everything and the rest, you won't become a good golf player unless at some time you try it for yourself. The same of course it true for instruments.
On a system without memory protection, you'd not get a general protection(!) fault, you'd e.g. get the timer interrupt redirected at some random location.
Well, if the room itself is called "Station room", yes, it should be the International Space Station Station Room, i.e. the Station Room of the International Space Station (as opposed to an ISS room in general, i.e. a room of the ISS; most ISS rooms are not the ISS Station Room).
There isn't a single FOSS project in the world which was shut down by Microsoft bringing a lawsuit...
Indeed, Microsoft's strategy in this respect (->SCO) hasn't been very successful up to now. Which doesn't mean they didn't try.
and yet the Stallmanistas keep puling away and crying about how all the problems in the world are caused by Microsoft.
Not all problems: Nobody claims 9/11 was done by MS.:-) But seriously, MS has a long history of applying unfair methods against their competition (see e.g. DR DOS, OS/2, Java). And they are seeing Linux/OSS as threat (see e.g. the Halloween documents), and already target them (SCO law suit payed by MS, dirty playing in the OOXML standardization process).
To me, all forms of virtualization are never going to provide 100% security.
Of course. The only way to get 100% security is to keep your computer switched off. Well, thinking about it, even then there are local exploits where others may switch on the computer...
Of course all virtualization won't help much if anything important happens out of the control of the VM. This includes your DVD/whatever drive, your graphics card/monitor, and the license server you have to contact to with some DRM schemes. VMs may help with the breaking of such DRM schemes by making the data streams visible, but it cannot reveal anything going on in your hardware and/or on external servers.
For a simple example how a DRM scheme might work: The DVD drive and the graphics card set up an encrypted data stream (basically the same way two computers set up an ssh connection through the untrusted internet), and the computer only issues commands to the drive and graphics card, and transports encrypted data from one to the other. There's no way to break this scheme just through a VM; you'll have to analyze your hardware to find out the secret keys.
1. You must get root access in the guest OS in order to exploit VM bugs.
While this may be true for certain VM bugs (e.g. if there's a bug in the emulation of certain priviledged instructions which user code cannot trigger), there's in general no reason why it has to be.
2. Compromising the VM gives you only user level access to the host OS.
I don't know how much of a VM runs in user space, but there are definitively parts running as root. If you can exploit the root part, you've immediately gained root on the host OS.
3. There's another security barrier for going from the host OS to any guest OS.
While I'm no expert in this, I think as soon as you get host-root, you've got complete control (e.g. you can simply replace the running guest VM with your own).
Of course, even if you can gain host-level root from user-level VMs, it doesn't necessarily mean the VM scenario is less secure. The point is, the tradeoff is between
(a) The cracker exploits the OS to get root access, at which point it can control the other app running on the same OS
and
(b) The cracker exploits the WV to get host root access, at which point it can controll the other app running on another gues of the same host.
Note that the security of either the host or the guest OS doesn't matter at all in the second scenario. Therefore the question of which is more secure is simply the question of which will more likely be exploited: The OS, or the VM?
Slashdot Mirror
The law of the country where the airplane is registered, of the destination,
However, what if I leave a ship for a swim in international waters, and someone from another ship (registered in another country) does the same, and then he steals something from me? Which law would apply there?
You forgot the SCREEN 2 to switch to graphics mode. You cannot draw lines in text mode.
Cue ASP.NET jokes in 3... 1... 2... Your countdown seems a bit buggy
Please note that I don't not necessarily believe in the above statement it is just for argument purposes. If god existed, he wouldn't have allowed you to post that second line. Therefore god does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk
You shouldn't take "from scratch" too far, otherwise you'll have to start making your own transistors
You mean, Wolfram is currently working on the ultimate torture device?
The question is: How much can human ears detect? That is, can you actually hear the 16 bit quantization noise?
But you can read as many good books about golf as you want, or ask the best golf players in the world about everything and the rest, you won't become a good golf player unless at some time you try it for yourself. The same of course it true for instruments.
Thou shalt not dispute the Slashdot editor's choice of words! :-)
Of course there's also the Wikia model:
1. Get people to submit contents to you.
2. Get people to clean it up for you.
3. Profit!
You mean the lander was damaged by a missed joke?
GPF? On a system without memory protection?
On a system without memory protection, you'd not get a general protection(!) fault, you'd e.g. get the timer interrupt redirected at some random location.
Well, if the room itself is called "Station room", yes, it should be the International Space Station Station Room, i.e. the Station Room of the International Space Station (as opposed to an ISS room in general, i.e. a room of the ISS; most ISS rooms are not the ISS Station Room).
Indeed, Microsoft's strategy in this respect (->SCO) hasn't been very successful up to now. Which doesn't mean they didn't try.
Not all problems: Nobody claims 9/11 was done by MS.
But seriously, MS has a long history of applying unfair methods against their competition (see e.g. DR DOS, OS/2, Java). And they are seeing Linux/OSS as threat (see e.g. the Halloween documents), and already target them (SCO law suit payed by MS, dirty playing in the OOXML standardization process).
Of course. The only way to get 100% security is to keep your computer switched off. Well, thinking about it, even then there are local exploits where others may switch on the computer
Of course all virtualization won't help much if anything important happens out of the control of the VM. This includes your DVD/whatever drive, your graphics card/monitor, and the license server you have to contact to with some DRM schemes. VMs may help with the breaking of such DRM schemes by making the data streams visible, but it cannot reveal anything going on in your hardware and/or on external servers.
For a simple example how a DRM scheme might work: The DVD drive and the graphics card set up an encrypted data stream (basically the same way two computers set up an ssh connection through the untrusted internet), and the computer only issues commands to the drive and graphics card, and transports encrypted data from one to the other. There's no way to break this scheme just through a VM; you'll have to analyze your hardware to find out the secret keys.
How many remote holes have been found in VMs yet?
You are making three assumptions:
1. You must get root access in the guest OS in order to exploit VM bugs.
While this may be true for certain VM bugs (e.g. if there's a bug in the emulation of certain priviledged instructions which user code cannot trigger), there's in general no reason why it has to be.
2. Compromising the VM gives you only user level access to the host OS.
I don't know how much of a VM runs in user space, but there are definitively parts running as root. If you can exploit the root part, you've immediately gained root on the host OS.
3. There's another security barrier for going from the host OS to any guest OS.
While I'm no expert in this, I think as soon as you get host-root, you've got complete control (e.g. you can simply replace the running guest VM with your own).
Of course, even if you can gain host-level root from user-level VMs, it doesn't necessarily mean the VM scenario is less secure. The point is, the tradeoff is between
(a) The cracker exploits the OS to get root access, at which point it can control the other app running on the same OS
and
(b) The cracker exploits the WV to get host root access, at which point it can controll the other app running on another gues of the same host.
Note that the security of either the host or the guest OS doesn't matter at all in the second scenario. Therefore the question of which is more secure is simply the question of which will more likely be exploited: The OS, or the VM?