Well, no, since I specifically asked if there were any "More?". I'm sincerely interested in knowing if I overlooked something in my list. Name calling was not called for.
What good are my fifteen daily modpoints when it doesn't stop one from being insulted by anonymous cowards . . .
So any wrongful destination now has a lot of passwords. Especially IMAP and POP and suchlike, not even a need to set up a misleading website, you can play totally innocent.
Prevention:
1) Don't have a root server in a country that wants to censor information
2) Implement free SSL certs so that it is no longer "normal" to just click through the SSL cert alert
3) DNSCurve, DNSSEC, whatever
4) Encrypt.
5) Even when using encryption always use auth schemes that cannot be replayed afterwards. Without certs I don't think you can stop MITM, but much too many people use only one password for a lot of different things, at least that one won't be in the sniffer's hands.
Indeed, if being gay can get you fired or will harm your career, then any "bad" guy could threaten to reveal this info to the government.
I'm not surprised the employer wants to know, simply to compare the reality (as seen by an investigation) to what you tell them and to what you tell the world. In a place and time where there is discrimination against some concealable characteristic you may possess (whether sexual or religious or genetic or something else like a criminal uncle or a youthful DUI), you may feel like hiding that. If you do so, then someone who finds out can try to blackmail you, on the basis that 1) you want to keep your secret, and 2) you want to hide that you lied to your employer. You are therefore a security risk.
However, hopefully, if you are openly gay or whatever, it is not a reason for blackmail and thus not a reason for you to be considered a security risk. Hopefully. Unless the bosses forget that in the place and time you live it is possible to be legally and openly gay, and that the simple fact of being gay should not constitute a risk. Unless you fear (correctly or not) that simple dislike or prejudice might prevent you from getting the job. Then you might want to hide . . . cue previous reasoning.
The perceived existence of illegal discrimination thus feeds a legitimate discrimination, which feeds itself.
In fact, one could argue that the very existence of the security check creates the possibility of this circular reasoning, which should be a reason to officially state that sexual orientation is not a part of the questions asked. I suppose that the JPL scientists think along those lines. However, you might be hiding your sexual orientation from your wife, so I don't see that question disappearing any time soon.
Look at capability operating systems like CapROS, interfaces like CapDesk or plash, or the Polaris system newly released by HP (haven't had the time to look at it yet). Basically, in a capability system, every single process is sandboxed in an intuitive way. You the user have big rights, but you do not by default delegate those rights to a program when you launch a program. By default you only want to give it some RAM, a window to communicate with you, and probably a read-only or a read-write version of a file - so that's what the prcess gets as parameters. No blocks as such, just no system calls available other than read/write to parameter n.
So maybe reprehensible in.au and.us, but what if the victim is there but the perp is in some other country where the legislator thinks rape is not so bad in First Life and/or doesn't even have Internet ?
1) This project does NOT incorporate, access, call upon, or otherwise use encryption of any kind, including, but not limited to, open source algorithms and/or calls to encryption in the operating system or underlying platform.
and
2) This project DOES incorporate, access, call upon or otherwise use encryption. Posting of open source encryption is controlled under U.S. Export Control Classification Number "ECCN" 5D002 and must be simultaneously reported by email to the U.S. government. You are responsible for submitting this email report to the U.S. government in accordance with procedures described in: http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/PubAvailEncSourceCodeNotify.html and Section 740.13(e) of the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR") 15 C.F.R. Parts 730-772.
My project FileUniq is plain python, and executes a call to "md5" in order to get a hash. Obtaining a python library that provides the md5 function is not even described in the documentation, but I definitely do make a call to encryption in the underlying platform. However, I firmly believe that the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security will not appreciate my TSU notification.
Maybe Sourceforge actually wants to overwhelm the BIS with useless submissions?
I won't even get into SDSU vs SDSU (San Diego State Univ. vs. South Dakota State Univ.).
Huh? Isn't it called UCSD (University of California, San Diego)? Like UCLA, UCSF?
Oh. There actually exists a "San Diego State University", in San Diego, California, abbreviated SDSU. It is not the same as UCSD (University of California, San Diego). My head hurts.
No, especially if it is one: "If you make a bomb, make sure it doesn't look like one, and don't show it to your friends before setting it off." That 11 year-old and a lot of his friends will certainly have learned that lesson, but I must admit I'm surprised at the school's curriculum.
Reading the article (I know, but someone has to:-) ) it seems that it wasn't a Science Fair project, it was just something the kid had been playing around with at home and then brought it in to show his friends. The kid violated school policies
After looking twice I can't even find the part where it says "may not bring guns or knives or other weapons", let alone "may not bring anything that could possibly at a distance be mistaken for something dangerous".
and that is why they said he should get counselling.
Personally I think the school should pay for counseling, since the only reason he would need it is for the trauma of being treated like a terrorist:-)
So the school has a policy banning kids from being inventive and wanting to show that inventiveness off. Anyway - thats one kid the school system has scared off technology - well done San Diego Unified School District.
The ironic thing is that this is supposed to be a "Tech Magnet" school. Quoting from their mission statement:
All Millennial Tech Middle School students will cultivate their technology skills to enhance their motivation and curiosity to excel academically in order to become productive citizens that will drastically impact the developing information age.
All Millennial Tech Middle School students will cultivate their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills to enhance their motivation to excel academically in order to become global leaders and productive citizens in their chosen career path.
That sounds like the kids might be expected to construct fun things related to science.
Granted, it also sounds like you should expect your kid to be traumatized by the teachers. Not by the police, though.
I'll go against everyone and say that no, you should not have to audit the code.
The fact that in order to use a software package safely an expert has to go through every single instruction is an aberration that would be done away with by using a capability operating system like KeyKOS, CapROS, or Coyotos.
Start OpenOffice or PDF reader or whatever with 1) authorization to interact with its X11 window 2) a means to call out to a trusted system dialog box for reading and saving files from/to the user's space. Nothing else. What do you care if there is malicious code in the application? It is surprisingly simple to extend the concept to everything in the system when you are designing the system.
Unfortunately KeyKOS is old (1970, PDP-10), the Coyotos lead was hired by Microsoft last spring, and CapROS hasn't enough coders. Maybe sometime in fifty years or so we will have a secure operating system.
While technically military the "Gendarmerie Nationale" aren't exactly soldiers
I do hope you don't usually associate people that "aren't exactly soldiers" with machine guns, parachutes, and armored cars sporting 90mm guns.
The Gendarmerie is not just "technically" a military organization. Even if since 2002 they report to Interior instead of Defense concerning their police duties, the gendarmes go to some lengths to keep themselves soldiers, starting off by working in uniform. They actually specify that they are wearing their uniform as part of their preamble for official transcripts of depositions or interrogations.
On the "police" side, they are responsible for the security of the citizens on 95% of the territory (covering 50% of the population), and that "administrative police" function occupies about half of their number, but they also provide the "military police" in the anglo-saxon sense of the term, the Coast Guard equivalent, the Presidential honor guard, as well as some more FBI-like tasks, but on the whole they are not at all like the FBI as the following AC says.
Yes, their cohabitation with the civilian "police" is sometimes a delicate balancing act, but well, they manage somehow.
The Spanish Guardia Civil and the Italian Carabinieri are two other exemples of the same evolution.
I am suggesting that we should have been building more traffic circles and less traffic lights. But of course, most Americans are unfamiliar with using traffic circles, and think of them as those weird confusing European things.
Aside - I have two traditional hard drives in my PC. They've been spinning almost-nonstop since 2003. Any idea how much longer I have until they crash?
Until you stop them. They continue spinning well past the point where the wear will stop them from spinning up after stopping.
Corollary: always make sure you have up-to-date backups before shutting off a long-running machine.
You don't have to. I bet the calls are saved to a NetApp that has the no-delete feature turned on. Absolutely no way of deleting things short of physical intervention on the storage bay, which would destroy other calls. You would have to copy calls you want to keep to another bay and sent the old one back to NetApp for a wipe.
Cool feature when you don't want to lose things:-)
As for price, well, some people have money, earn money using the tool that a computer is, and consider *correct* performance worth their money.
Seen from a business view, it is *good* to know that if your system breaks down there *will* be a really competent guy (or two) on site in less than a hour. I've seen it happen. At 2300 hours on a Friday evening. It is *good* to know that if something really bizarre happens, and the front-line guys really don't know what to do, mobile phones and beepers are sounding on the other side of the world to assemble a team of the people who designed the system, and that if necessary their plane tickets *will* be waiting for them at the airport, and that a complete replacement system is being loaded on a truck as we are speaking.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. Virtualized, redundant, load-balanced, backed up, and with the stamp of approval from "everyone who's looked at the code". But when your printing system breaks down, and your in-house engineers have eliminated your custom software and are having problems determining whether the problem is in the printing software or the drivers or the printer firmware or the printer hardware, and you can't send out your truckloads of bills representing hundreds of thousands of dollars a day, I'll wager you'll feel much better waiting for the guys from IBM than waiting for someone to reply to your "VERY URGENT PLEASE HELP" on the CUPS mailing list.
I also use a really nice DLP HDTV projector for games and movies, and I cannot tell you what a PITA it is to set up that IR bar underneath the projector image in the front side of my living room but yet have the Wii sit in the back of the room where the projector and my amp sits.
I've been told the IR bar is just two or three LEDs, it does not send any information back to the the Wii system. The information provided by the IR bar is simply "here is the screen", provided to the WiiMote. The connection to the Wii is just a voltage to power the LEDs.
I know people who use two candles instead of a Wii IR bar.
I guess most open-source projects imitate Microsoft no strictly, that they even imitate their motto "Don't innovate. Imitate!".
It is a good thing because Zimbra does not only match Exchange feaures but also adds their own. We are not talking about copying a UI but implementing features.
Just to start, having exactly (OK, almost exactly) the same interface on your webmail as on your disconnected laptop is very nice. How they managed that is a hack sure to bring a smile to the lips of any geek: the installable client is "simply" a stripped-down web browser front-end and a backend dedicated web server that when appropriate (when connected) acts as a proxy cache to the real server. Bingo: same UI, it's the same code...
Hacking the code and implementing extensions in Java are also possibilities that I doubt were copied from Exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no, since I specifically asked if there were any "More?". I'm sincerely interested in knowing if I overlooked something in my list. Name calling was not called for.
What good are my fifteen daily modpoints when it doesn't stop one from being insulted by anonymous cowards . . .
So any wrongful destination now has a lot of passwords. Especially IMAP and POP and suchlike, not even a need to set up a misleading website, you can play totally innocent.
Prevention:
1) Don't have a root server in a country that wants to censor information
2) Implement free SSL certs so that it is no longer "normal" to just click through the SSL cert alert
3) DNSCurve, DNSSEC, whatever
4) Encrypt.
5) Even when using encryption always use auth schemes that cannot be replayed afterwards. Without certs I don't think you can stop MITM, but much too many people use only one password for a lot of different things, at least that one won't be in the sniffer's hands.
More?
Indeed, if being gay can get you fired or will harm your career, then any "bad" guy could threaten to reveal this info to the government.
I'm not surprised the employer wants to know, simply to compare the reality (as seen by an investigation) to what you tell them and to what you tell the world. In a place and time where there is discrimination against some concealable characteristic you may possess (whether sexual or religious or genetic or something else like a criminal uncle or a youthful DUI), you may feel like hiding that. If you do so, then someone who finds out can try to blackmail you, on the basis that 1) you want to keep your secret, and 2) you want to hide that you lied to your employer. You are therefore a security risk.
However, hopefully, if you are openly gay or whatever, it is not a reason for blackmail and thus not a reason for you to be considered a security risk. Hopefully. Unless the bosses forget that in the place and time you live it is possible to be legally and openly gay, and that the simple fact of being gay should not constitute a risk. Unless you fear (correctly or not) that simple dislike or prejudice might prevent you from getting the job. Then you might want to hide . . . cue previous reasoning.
The perceived existence of illegal discrimination thus feeds a legitimate discrimination, which feeds itself.
In fact, one could argue that the very existence of the security check creates the possibility of this circular reasoning, which should be a reason to officially state that sexual orientation is not a part of the questions asked. I suppose that the JPL scientists think along those lines. However, you might be hiding your sexual orientation from your wife, so I don't see that question disappearing any time soon.
Look at capability operating systems like CapROS, interfaces like CapDesk or plash, or the Polaris system newly released by HP (haven't had the time to look at it yet). Basically, in a capability system, every single process is sandboxed in an intuitive way. You the user have big rights, but you do not by default delegate those rights to a program when you launch a program. By default you only want to give it some RAM, a window to communicate with you, and probably a read-only or a read-write version of a file - so that's what the prcess gets as parameters. No blocks as such, just no system calls available other than read/write to parameter n.
So maybe reprehensible in .au and .us, but what if the victim is there but the perp is in some other country where the legislator thinks rape is not so bad in First Life and/or doesn't even have Internet ?
Sue the game company, of course.
CGI is awful, they could at least have tried for EGA
The choices are
1) This project does NOT incorporate, access, call upon, or otherwise use encryption of any kind, including, but not limited to, open source algorithms and/or calls to encryption in the operating system or underlying platform.
and
2) This project DOES incorporate, access, call upon or otherwise use encryption. Posting of open source encryption is controlled under U.S. Export Control Classification Number "ECCN" 5D002 and must be simultaneously reported by email to the U.S. government. You are responsible for submitting this email report to the U.S. government in accordance with procedures described in: http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/PubAvailEncSourceCodeNotify.html and Section 740.13(e) of the Export Administration Regulations ("EAR") 15 C.F.R. Parts 730-772.
My project FileUniq is plain python, and executes a call to "md5" in order to get a hash. Obtaining a python library that provides the md5 function is not even described in the documentation, but I definitely do make a call to encryption in the underlying platform. However, I firmly believe that the U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security will not appreciate my TSU notification.
Maybe Sourceforge actually wants to overwhelm the BIS with useless submissions?
Who is this researcher to relicense their works of art? Just because they can't complain!
Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby present you with the first ever time travelling message! Posted in 1993, it appeared on slashdot just now.
You must be old here.
Yes, Anonymous Coward is one of our oldest and most prolific contributors.
Doesn't say what he uses on his computer, though, or how much time he needs to process a picture.
Sure. I'll save you the read: there is nothing relevant in there.
http://www.mtechmiddle.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=58810&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=87933&hideMenu=1&rn=6634111
Their About Us/Mission and Vision Statement is a gas, though.
I won't even get into SDSU vs SDSU (San Diego State Univ. vs. South Dakota State Univ.).
Huh? Isn't it called UCSD (University of California, San Diego)? Like UCLA, UCSF?
Oh. There actually exists a "San Diego State University", in San Diego, California, abbreviated SDSU. It is not the same as UCSD (University of California, San Diego). My head hurts.
next time the project won't just look like a bomb
Even if it is one...
No, especially if it is one: "If you make a bomb, make sure it doesn't look like one, and don't show it to your friends before setting it off." That 11 year-old and a lot of his friends will certainly have learned that lesson, but I must admit I'm surprised at the school's curriculum.
Reading the article (I know, but someone has to :-) ) it seems that it wasn't a Science Fair project, it was just something the kid had been playing around with at home and then brought it in to show his friends. The kid violated school policies
No he didn't... the school policies are here:
http://www.mtechmiddle.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=58810&type=d&termREC_ID=&pREC_ID=87933&hideMenu=1&rn=8708720
After looking twice I can't even find the part where it says "may not bring guns or knives or other weapons", let alone "may not bring anything that could possibly at a distance be mistaken for something dangerous".
and that is why they said he should get counselling.
Personally I think the school should pay for counseling, since the only reason he would need it is for the trauma of being treated like a terrorist :-)
So the school has a policy banning kids from being inventive and wanting to show that inventiveness off. Anyway - thats one kid the school system has scared off technology - well done San Diego Unified School District.
The ironic thing is that this is supposed to be a "Tech Magnet" school. Quoting from their mission statement:
All Millennial Tech Middle School students will cultivate their technology skills to enhance their motivation and curiosity to excel academically in order to become productive citizens that will drastically impact the developing information age.
All Millennial Tech Middle School students will cultivate their science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills to enhance their motivation to excel academically in order to become global leaders and productive citizens in their chosen career path.
That sounds like the kids might be expected to construct fun things related to science.
Granted, it also sounds like you should expect your kid to be traumatized by the teachers. Not by the police, though.
Those galaxies have had a lot of time to develop life. Maybe prioritize that direction for SETI...
I'll go against everyone and say that no, you should not have to audit the code.
The fact that in order to use a software package safely an expert has to go through every single instruction is an aberration that would be done away with by using a capability operating system like KeyKOS, CapROS, or Coyotos.
Start OpenOffice or PDF reader or whatever with 1) authorization to interact with its X11 window 2) a means to call out to a trusted system dialog box for reading and saving files from/to the user's space. Nothing else. What do you care if there is malicious code in the application? It is surprisingly simple to extend the concept to everything in the system when you are designing the system.
Unfortunately KeyKOS is old (1970, PDP-10), the Coyotos lead was hired by Microsoft last spring, and CapROS hasn't enough coders. Maybe sometime in fifty years or so we will have a secure operating system.
While technically military the "Gendarmerie Nationale" aren't exactly soldiers
I do hope you don't usually associate people that "aren't exactly soldiers" with machine guns, parachutes, and armored cars sporting 90mm guns.
The Gendarmerie is not just "technically" a military organization. Even if since 2002 they report to Interior instead of Defense concerning their police duties, the gendarmes go to some lengths to keep themselves soldiers, starting off by working in uniform. They actually specify that they are wearing their uniform as part of their preamble for official transcripts of depositions or interrogations.
On the "police" side, they are responsible for the security of the citizens on 95% of the territory (covering 50% of the population), and that "administrative police" function occupies about half of their number, but they also provide the "military police" in the anglo-saxon sense of the term, the Coast Guard equivalent, the Presidential honor guard, as well as some more FBI-like tasks, but on the whole they are not at all like the FBI as the following AC says.
Yes, their cohabitation with the civilian "police" is sometimes a delicate balancing act, but well, they manage somehow.
The Spanish Guardia Civil and the Italian Carabinieri are two other exemples of the same evolution.
And yes, the gendarmes definitely use OpenOffice.
Last time I looked France even had a 40+ year old tidal hydro power station near Le Havre as well as a wide variety of other power plants. Try harder.
79% of electricity produced in France is produced in nuclear reactors.
http://www.planete-energies.com/contenu/nucleaire/production-consommation.html
Another source says that out of all energy consumed in France (including fuel for cars and such), 44% is of nuclear origin.
Maybe it is not correct to say that nuclear power runs the whole nation, but the nation sure wouldn't run without it.
I am suggesting that we should have been building more traffic circles and less traffic lights. But of course, most Americans are unfamiliar with using traffic circles, and think of them as those weird confusing European things.
Confusing? Oh, that's badmouthing perfectly well understood traffic circles like the Swindon Magic Roundabout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Roundabout_(Swindon) http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=51.562865,-1.771371&spn=0.000859,0.002843&t=h&z=19
As for the single computer, i bet a coke no one knows the root password, the system administrator is long gone and the programmers are very long gone.
Reading TFA (but you have to go to the second page, oooh), it seems that they're a bit more clueful than that.
"The server seems to be sending the signal, but the conduit is not transferring the information to the signal lights."
Maybe in a day or two they'll contact a network engineer :-)
Aside - I have two traditional hard drives in my PC. They've been spinning almost-nonstop since 2003. Any idea how much longer I have until they crash?
Until you stop them. They continue spinning well past the point where the wear will stop them from spinning up after stopping.
Corollary: always make sure you have up-to-date backups before shutting off a long-running machine.
You don't have to. I bet the calls are saved to a NetApp that has the no-delete feature turned on. Absolutely no way of deleting things short of physical intervention on the storage bay, which would destroy other calls. You would have to copy calls you want to keep to another bay and sent the old one back to NetApp for a wipe.
Cool feature when you don't want to lose things :-)
No, it was an IBM (RTFA).
As for price, well, some people have money, earn money using the tool that a computer is, and consider *correct* performance worth their money.
Seen from a business view, it is *good* to know that if your system breaks down there *will* be a really competent guy (or two) on site in less than a hour. I've seen it happen. At 2300 hours on a Friday evening. It is *good* to know that if something really bizarre happens, and the front-line guys really don't know what to do, mobile phones and beepers are sounding on the other side of the world to assemble a team of the people who designed the system, and that if necessary their plane tickets *will* be waiting for them at the airport, and that a complete replacement system is being loaded on a truck as we are speaking.
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. Virtualized, redundant, load-balanced, backed up, and with the stamp of approval from "everyone who's looked at the code". But when your printing system breaks down, and your in-house engineers have eliminated your custom software and are having problems determining whether the problem is in the printing software or the drivers or the printer firmware or the printer hardware, and you can't send out your truckloads of bills representing hundreds of thousands of dollars a day, I'll wager you'll feel much better waiting for the guys from IBM than waiting for someone to reply to your "VERY URGENT PLEASE HELP" on the CUPS mailing list.
I also use a really nice DLP HDTV projector for games and movies, and I cannot tell you what a PITA it is to set up that IR bar underneath the projector image in the front side of my living room but yet have the Wii sit in the back of the room where the projector and my amp sits.
I've been told the IR bar is just two or three LEDs, it does not send any information back to the the Wii system. The information provided by the IR bar is simply "here is the screen", provided to the WiiMote. The connection to the Wii is just a voltage to power the LEDs.
I know people who use two candles instead of a Wii IR bar.
HTH.
It matches, feature-for-feature, Exchange.
How in the world exactly, is this a good thing?
I guess most open-source projects imitate Microsoft no strictly, that they even imitate their motto "Don't innovate. Imitate!".
It is a good thing because Zimbra does not only match Exchange feaures but also adds their own. We are not talking about copying a UI but implementing features.
Just to start, having exactly (OK, almost exactly) the same interface on your webmail as on your disconnected laptop is very nice. How they managed that is a hack sure to bring a smile to the lips of any geek: the installable client is "simply" a stripped-down web browser front-end and a backend dedicated web server that when appropriate (when connected) acts as a proxy cache to the real server. Bingo: same UI, it's the same code...
Hacking the code and implementing extensions in Java are also possibilities that I doubt were copied from Exchange.