It's likely that you're having this problem because Firefox doesn't use the AOSS wrapper by default. Try running $(aoss firefox) (or in Debian edit/etc/firefox|iceweasel/firefoxrc|iceweaselrc and set it to use the aoss wrapper). That fixed it for me.
If you aren't using Firefox/Iceweasel, it's likely that it's a similar problem.
The world may never know. It could go either way, because if everyone was free to use everything, without regard for copying others' work, then the "good guys" who didn't copy others would still be just as free to make their quality work. Maybe they'd have to get their income from other sources. Maybe more people would spend time creating content rather than just consuming it. Maybe TV commercials and a lot of advertising would go away. My, what a shame that would be!
This is sickening. "I thought of it first!" "Yours looks just like mine!" Greed, greed, greed! It's almost like a bunch of little, immature, selfish kids. "I called it!" "It's mine!"
I really wonder if the world might not be better off without copyrights and patents. So what if it cut into record sales, and so what if some guy in his garage couldn't get exclusive rights to the next can opener? Maybe musicians would make a living from performing, or maybe they'd make music as a hobby, or maybe they'd have patrons that would sponsor them. Maybe inventors would still sell their inventions to companies, or maybe they'd be consultants to those companies, or maybe they'd start their own companies. Maybe people would hoard their ideas a bit, or maybe they'd have a more open, sharing attitude. But at least if you had something in your hands in front of you, or on your screen in front of you, there wouldn't be a stupid piece of paper rubber-stamped by a stupid, bored clerk that said that you couldn't make one too. Geez, if everyone had to think of everything from scratch, we wouldn't even have gotten to the stone age!
Well, the default in GNU mkfs is usually to reserve 5% of the blocks for the root user. I don't know if OS X does this as well, but if it reserved even 1%, it'd probably prevent this problem. (Though it would probably be wiser to reserve a certain number of MB since even 1% of today's drives would be wasteful.)
The undeletable file suggests fs corruption, of course. But that could have many causes. *shrug*
As far as I understand it, the specifics of the problem are that the OS does not corrupt data on "track zero" as earlier posts mentioned. I think that FUD should be quelled.
The problem you refer to is completely different. It's not about corrupting data, it's about the OS just not booting when it's out of disk space.
Really, how long before the USPTO grants a patent to someone that causes the USPTO itself to infringe upon a patent? Or are they (most likely) already infringing upon some? What are the odds that their massive IT system and web site system infringes upon some patent? (Note that I'm not saying worthy patents, just patents that the USPTO granted.) How long until some company sues the USPTO for licensing fees? (Or is that even possible...)
(I really don't know what I'm talking about here, but it makes you wonder. It sure would be ironic.)
I really don't know how I managed to turn Vermont into Oregon; sorry about that. At least I can laugh about it; I honestly didn't think Slashdot would even post it. Someone wondered if I had read the article instead of copying and pasting. Well, if I had copied and pasted, I probably wouldn't have made that 3,000 mile mistake.:) I must have gotten interrupted somehow while I was typing my blurb.
Speaking of blurbs, Slashdot unfortunately cut part of what I said, which made a point along the lines of, "This is one time where you wish the big guy had squashed the little guy, because the little guy is the one with the absurd patent claim. But Apple has a few of those absurd patents it likes to enforce too, doesn't it?" If Apple squashed these silly patents, that might lend credence to those who'd like to do the same to Apple's silly patents.
Ask.com's has no dragging or scrolling, doesn't show local things on the map with pop-up details, doesn't allow you to click to recenter the map, has no satellite photo view, no combined satellite/roadmap view, doesn't fill the available browser window space...uh...how is it better than Google's again?
www.dreamhost.com Disk: 20GB/month, increases by 800MB/month; Bandwidth: 1TB/month, increases by 32GB/month. Price: $7.95/month. The longer you're a customer, the more space and bandwidth you get. Includes shell accounts, etc. On top of that, ssh/sftp/rsync bandwidth doesn't even count against your account usage. I use Duplicity (rdiff-backup+gzip+gnupg) to backup several gigs of data on a regular basis, and it's great.
Don't blame the spam on the customer's use of a catchall. The spammers will probably do it to any domain, whether it's using a catchall address or not.
he behavior of many, if not most people is to buy a new computer when theirs is "slow" (i.e. infected). Microsoft and the computer sellers like this because they get a higher rate of replacement then they would otherwise. So really, they are not at fault.
Not only that, but then the spammers get a more powerful computer to use as a zombie.
I understand the reasons for the only-hit-spammers-that-spammed-you approach, but I dislike it. It's simply reverse extortion. "Stop spamming me and I'll stop spamming you. But you can keep spamming other people all you want; as long as you don't spam me, I won't spam you." If the spammers do opt-out all the blackfrogs, you've only reduced spam by 1% (if that much). Everyone else on the Net keeps getting spammed.
One should not have to become a blackfrog to get one's received spam to stop. Spam should stop because spam is wrong.
(We should really call it White Frog or Gray Frog, because these frogs are supposed to be the good guys; like white hat or gray hat vs. black hat.)
The message to the spammers should be, "Stop spamming, because it's wrong. And stop spamming everyone, not just those who take the time to complain." And the goal should be to eradicate all spam, not to merely stop oneself from receiving spam.
Exactly. And it seems to me like the "correct" solution to this is an OpenPGP-based web of trust. Or maybe a web is not really what is needed; all you'd really need is for the "go after this site" instructions to be signed by the trusted party, like BlueSecurity. Then it wouldn't even matter how the instructions were received, as long as they could be verified as authentic. You could use anything from a web site, to e-mail, to IRC, to IM, to a P2P network to pass the instructions along. In a P2P network the trusted party could inject them at any peer, avoiding a central point of vulnerability.
The spammers' attack for such a system could be any of these:
Attack the P2P network.
Using a dedicated P2P network for this could make it an easier target, so it might be wise to use an existing P2P network, perhaps something like Gnutella. All that would be needed is for the trusted party to post a file named in a certain way every so often, and then the peers could search for and download this file, and then verify that it was signed by the right key. The trusted party could inject the file at any peer, so the only way to stop the file from being injected would be to take down the whole network.
Of course, the spammers could then poison the network with files that are named the same way and have the same file size. That could result in a lot of peers wasting their time downloading invalid files, but it wouldn't result in attacking the wrong targets. The solution to that would be a "fake system," that could automatically tell the P2P network which files have not been signed and are invalid, which would then be rated low by the system, and then not downloaded by any more peers. Such systems already exist on some networks, although I don't know how effective they are.
The spammers could also attack individual peers that have the files. After all, how do you tell a good peer from an undercover-spammer peer that's looking for peers that have the files? 20,000 zombies hitting 100,000 peers can still hurt. In fact, it could hurt *worse* than their attack on BlueSecurity, because it might be trivial for the bad guys to DDoS the peers that are participating in the anti-spam network, and then you have 100,000 individual people getting their ISP accounts shut off.
Attack the signing key.
20,000 zombies all grinding away at the key in a SETI-like fashion would eventually crack it; perhaps they'd even get lucky and crack it sooner than expected. Then the spammer could quickly use the system to attack the wrong targets, getting lots of people in lots of trouble, and causing the system to be shut off ASAP. This would also destroy the reptutation of the system and any future similar systems.
A solution to this would be to frequently change the key, by posting a message signed with the previously-valid key, containing the new key. However, any clients that missed this message, but continued to receive the attack instructions, could still end up hitting the wrong targets.
Attack the software.
All software has bugs, and all network-aware software has security holes at some point. No matter how big, widely-used, inspected, trusted, and open-sourced, the security notices still get posted for things like Apache, the Linux kernel, etc. Any software used in such a system would have to be thoroughly audited on a regular basis, and thoroughly tested against attack by experienced people. Even then, people running such software would still take a risk of their systems attacking the wrong targets and getting themselves in trouble.
Despite all that, such a system might work quite well. There could be more than one trusted party doing what BlueSecurity did, and adding them to the system could be as simple as adding their key to the software's keyring. And using non-P2P bands for passing the instructions could make it even more resiliant.
I guess, in the end, no one has really seen a cyber war on the scale on which such a scenario could take place.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than build on the existing code, they want to start a new civilization from scratch--"and do it right this time." *sigh*
The more real technical problems DRM'ed products have, the more consumers will notice. The sooner, the better. Here's to more handshaking problems!
But couldn't they just get your IP from looking at the tracker?
But then it would emit all of your data to the entire universe as x-rays.
It's likely that you're having this problem because Firefox doesn't use the AOSS wrapper by default. Try running $(aoss firefox) (or in Debian edit /etc/firefox|iceweasel/firefoxrc|iceweaselrc and set it to use the aoss wrapper). That fixed it for me.
If you aren't using Firefox/Iceweasel, it's likely that it's a similar problem.
Maybe you need:
:)
$ apt-cache search keyword
$ apt-file find filename
Those will show you the package you need. No need to switch distros and do everything by hand.
Yes, yes you were.
The world may never know. It could go either way, because if everyone was free to use everything, without regard for copying others' work, then the "good guys" who didn't copy others would still be just as free to make their quality work. Maybe they'd have to get their income from other sources. Maybe more people would spend time creating content rather than just consuming it. Maybe TV commercials and a lot of advertising would go away. My, what a shame that would be!
This is sickening. "I thought of it first!" "Yours looks just like mine!" Greed, greed, greed! It's almost like a bunch of little, immature, selfish kids. "I called it!" "It's mine!"
I really wonder if the world might not be better off without copyrights and patents. So what if it cut into record sales, and so what if some guy in his garage couldn't get exclusive rights to the next can opener? Maybe musicians would make a living from performing, or maybe they'd make music as a hobby, or maybe they'd have patrons that would sponsor them. Maybe inventors would still sell their inventions to companies, or maybe they'd be consultants to those companies, or maybe they'd start their own companies. Maybe people would hoard their ideas a bit, or maybe they'd have a more open, sharing attitude. But at least if you had something in your hands in front of you, or on your screen in front of you, there wouldn't be a stupid piece of paper rubber-stamped by a stupid, bored clerk that said that you couldn't make one too. Geez, if everyone had to think of everything from scratch, we wouldn't even have gotten to the stone age!
That's totally behoovular, man.
Hehe, cool. Got any screenshots (especially of you using Mozilla on OS/2)?
How much disk space do you have? Do you run Linux too?
I see (sort of :). Thanks for the explanation.
Am I reading that code wrong, or does that automatically click on the button to add the bookmark, thereby not giving the user the chance to cancel?
Well, the default in GNU mkfs is usually to reserve 5% of the blocks for the root user. I don't know if OS X does this as well, but if it reserved even 1%, it'd probably prevent this problem. (Though it would probably be wiser to reserve a certain number of MB since even 1% of today's drives would be wasteful.)
The undeletable file suggests fs corruption, of course. But that could have many causes. *shrug*
As far as I understand it, the specifics of the problem are that the OS does not corrupt data on "track zero" as earlier posts mentioned. I think that FUD should be quelled.
The problem you refer to is completely different. It's not about corrupting data, it's about the OS just not booting when it's out of disk space.
To quell some FUD.
Really, how long before the USPTO grants a patent to someone that causes the USPTO itself to infringe upon a patent? Or are they (most likely) already infringing upon some? What are the odds that their massive IT system and web site system infringes upon some patent? (Note that I'm not saying worthy patents, just patents that the USPTO granted.) How long until some company sues the USPTO for licensing fees? (Or is that even possible...)
(I really don't know what I'm talking about here, but it makes you wonder. It sure would be ironic.)
I really don't know how I managed to turn Vermont into Oregon; sorry about that. At least I can laugh about it; I honestly didn't think Slashdot would even post it. Someone wondered if I had read the article instead of copying and pasting. Well, if I had copied and pasted, I probably wouldn't have made that 3,000 mile mistake. :) I must have gotten interrupted somehow while I was typing my blurb.
Speaking of blurbs, Slashdot unfortunately cut part of what I said, which made a point along the lines of, "This is one time where you wish the big guy had squashed the little guy, because the little guy is the one with the absurd patent claim. But Apple has a few of those absurd patents it likes to enforce too, doesn't it?" If Apple squashed these silly patents, that might lend credence to those who'd like to do the same to Apple's silly patents.
What a fine mess.
Hm...I did turn on JavaScript in Firefox, but it didn't enable any of those features. I guess I'll have to try it again. Thanks.
Ask.com's has no dragging or scrolling, doesn't show local things on the map with pop-up details, doesn't allow you to click to recenter the map, has no satellite photo view, no combined satellite/roadmap view, doesn't fill the available browser window space...uh...how is it better than Google's again?
www.dreamhost.com Disk: 20GB/month, increases by 800MB/month; Bandwidth: 1TB/month, increases by 32GB/month. Price: $7.95/month. The longer you're a customer, the more space and bandwidth you get. Includes shell accounts, etc. On top of that, ssh/sftp/rsync bandwidth doesn't even count against your account usage. I use Duplicity (rdiff-backup+gzip+gnupg) to backup several gigs of data on a regular basis, and it's great.
Don't blame the spam on the customer's use of a catchall. The spammers will probably do it to any domain, whether it's using a catchall address or not.
Not only that, but then the spammers get a more powerful computer to use as a zombie.
I understand the reasons for the only-hit-spammers-that-spammed-you approach, but I dislike it. It's simply reverse extortion. "Stop spamming me and I'll stop spamming you. But you can keep spamming other people all you want; as long as you don't spam me, I won't spam you." If the spammers do opt-out all the blackfrogs, you've only reduced spam by 1% (if that much). Everyone else on the Net keeps getting spammed.
One should not have to become a blackfrog to get one's received spam to stop. Spam should stop because spam is wrong.
(We should really call it White Frog or Gray Frog, because these frogs are supposed to be the good guys; like white hat or gray hat vs. black hat.)
The message to the spammers should be, "Stop spamming, because it's wrong. And stop spamming everyone, not just those who take the time to complain." And the goal should be to eradicate all spam, not to merely stop oneself from receiving spam.
The spammers' attack for such a system could be any of these:
Using a dedicated P2P network for this could make it an easier target, so it might be wise to use an existing P2P network, perhaps something like Gnutella. All that would be needed is for the trusted party to post a file named in a certain way every so often, and then the peers could search for and download this file, and then verify that it was signed by the right key. The trusted party could inject the file at any peer, so the only way to stop the file from being injected would be to take down the whole network.
Of course, the spammers could then poison the network with files that are named the same way and have the same file size. That could result in a lot of peers wasting their time downloading invalid files, but it wouldn't result in attacking the wrong targets. The solution to that would be a "fake system," that could automatically tell the P2P network which files have not been signed and are invalid, which would then be rated low by the system, and then not downloaded by any more peers. Such systems already exist on some networks, although I don't know how effective they are.
The spammers could also attack individual peers that have the files. After all, how do you tell a good peer from an undercover-spammer peer that's looking for peers that have the files? 20,000 zombies hitting 100,000 peers can still hurt. In fact, it could hurt *worse* than their attack on BlueSecurity, because it might be trivial for the bad guys to DDoS the peers that are participating in the anti-spam network, and then you have 100,000 individual people getting their ISP accounts shut off.
20,000 zombies all grinding away at the key in a SETI-like fashion would eventually crack it; perhaps they'd even get lucky and crack it sooner than expected. Then the spammer could quickly use the system to attack the wrong targets, getting lots of people in lots of trouble, and causing the system to be shut off ASAP. This would also destroy the reptutation of the system and any future similar systems.
A solution to this would be to frequently change the key, by posting a message signed with the previously-valid key, containing the new key. However, any clients that missed this message, but continued to receive the attack instructions, could still end up hitting the wrong targets.
All software has bugs, and all network-aware software has security holes at some point. No matter how big, widely-used, inspected, trusted, and open-sourced, the security notices still get posted for things like Apache, the Linux kernel, etc. Any software used in such a system would have to be thoroughly audited on a regular basis, and thoroughly tested against attack by experienced people. Even then, people running such software would still take a risk of their systems attacking the wrong targets and getting themselves in trouble.
Despite all that, such a system might work quite well. There could be more than one trusted party doing what BlueSecurity did, and adding them to the system could be as simple as adding their key to the software's keyring. And using non-P2P bands for passing the instructions could make it even more resiliant. I guess, in the end, no one has really seen a cyber war on the scale on which such a scenario could take place.