I have a dream that in the future, there will a wireless network spanning that planet (a-la star trek subspace frequency).
I also have a dream that there will be IPv6 to support such a grandiose network.
As for security, in those years, thing will be 'much more secure'... like only some slight fraction of the servers today are.
I also see that you will not need to propagate your email address for doing usefull things (like registration to porn sites, or mega-corporations who think they own you)... like some of us are already doing today.
what's to stop some "evil corporation" from buying the rights to the software while it's still in the "Ransom" phase, and then "resetting" the expiry date, or the new Ransom amount?
Law: sound contracts/licenses written and reviewed by lawyers.
The word ransom is inciting this general fear of "what if the terrorist runs away with the hostage" kind of reaction. -- chill out, we're not on a battle field, this is a licensing issue, and if done properly, parties will stick to their terms till the end...
I like moft, and I follow their technological advances closely... and both of these platforms have got me wondering if some really high up technical person just made the call without consulting the lawyers...
Hah! That would be sweet: having a mole inside Moft.
Hey mister nit pick. Do you live in your mother's basement?
You're missing a conceptual point I made by saying It's like saying f'(x) = df/dx is 0 because df is almost zero...
To start off, take this statement from a reply post: I think that treating this as a kinetics problem is somewhat oversimplifying the situation. Subatomic particles don't hit cells in the same way that a hammer would
In effect, what you just said about the quark traveling through your body is quite uselss fact/argument too. The quark has the possibility of not touching you at all while passing through you... just like neutrinos can fly through the earth without ever touching anything... So the effect of this quark going through your body is most likely going to be to leave a disturbance trail - massive vibrations most likely... not a puncture hole.
Have you ever heard of rupturing cells by using sound alone? there's no impact there... it's all through vibrations.
The point you probably didn't understand about the purely formal equation f'(x) = df/dx is that using the argument that something is very small doesn't mean it won't do any damage.
Just to nit pick you back: Umm, last I heard something travelling at the speed of light must have an infinite mass..
You are plain wrong. Something traveling at the speed of light which has a mass must expend an infinite amount of energy to get to that speed. If it is at the speed of light, it must have zero mass (not infinite).
If you absolutely need a correction for my post, let me rephrase:
To apply it back to this case: (a previous post mentionned it too) if that thing had a mass of only a gram, but was traveling at near the speed of light...
People like you really annoy the hell out of me, because there is no place for ego (and insults) in a scientific argument...
You're not really taking into account that this thing has seismic effects felt around the globe.
It's like saying f'(x) = df/dx is 0 because df is almost zero... you are neglecting the very important fact that dx is almost zero too.
To apply it back to this case: (a previous post mentionned it too) if that thing weighed only a gram, but was traveling at the speed of light, you'd probably vaporize from the energy it would release in you. In the same veine, if it were traveling at reasonable speeds, weighed only 1kg, but the impact point was concentrated into one square nanometer, the damage done might just as well rupture every single cell in your body.
Another example is icebergs, those giants move at something like 2-3 km/h, but the energy they would release if they hit a oil-platform is greater than the energy a 747 would if it were to crash into the platform at cruising speed.
The bottom line is you have to know how much energy the particle contains, and also, how much of it would be released in your body. The fact that it's small doesn't indicate anything whatsoever...
My uninformed guess is that if this thing can cause mini-earthquakes, it could be quite a powerful blast on the body.
Run your app in normal mode, and watch what it's doing with FileMonitor (if you see ACCESS_DENIED entries, you can fix that pretty easily).
Now, if for example, you have a CDROM burner, open WinObj (as an administrator), and go to/device/Cdrom1... check the properties, and select the security tab. You will have an ACL editor a-la file system. There you can allow others than just Administrator burn (write) permissions.
That's a very cool tool. And as you can notice, burn rights are ACL entries, not user token priviledges. BIG difference.
I'm sure there's the same thing for scanners.
All Zealots: please notice how winobj actually shows the real NT namespace. And just like any other system, it starts at/. Also notice/Device/Null, and/Device/PhysicalMemory...
Let's not forget stuff like pppd which has to run as su... Everyone is guilty of this sort of behaviour.
This relates to a previous post about how certain practical (mis)applications do not surmise the overal design.
Win32 developpers tend to be much more novice than UNIX pure breads I find, and I think it has to do with the fact that the main IDEs on Win are very nice and easy to push buttons on. (click "create win project", click "build", run)...
Going from this to Win32 being an insecure system, though, is a giant leap of (il)logic.
The current user is a perfectly safe security context - unless, you are doing the same stupid thing 98% of bad users out there do: run as admin.
IIS needs to run as system for a couple of reasons that aren't worth detailing. The issue was the there was no distinction between Local-System, and Network-System as there is now in XP.
unfortunately a computer failure caused the vehicle to tip over
I find it quite interesting that of all things, computers fail so often on these rockets.
I mean, I can see a seal leaking liquid oxygen, or some micro-crack in a weld... but computers? for crying out loud, it's one of the most common pieces of equipment on the planet.
However I'd also be quite upset at my vendor for letting this happen.
You know, bugs aren't created on purpose. They aren't standard operating procedure. People make mistakes, and we need to face the facts that no software - I repeat - *no* software can be proven to be bug free.
So in the meantime, let's all just be realistic about this, and think about the potential damage that this post is going to cause.
Even think about the possible thousands of users who might just get so pissed off they throw out or stop using their computer... (that's a far fetched scenario, but it happens).
A properly configured Windows Box can be just as secure as any OS, you just have to know the system
Thank you for saying that out... there is nothing more valuable than a sysadmin who knows his platform.
I've been hearing a lot of moft-is-not-secure 'proofs' lately... I'm just wondering: has anyone actually proven that the OS is structuraly (ie by design) flawed?
A structural flaw for example would be that files have ACLs, but pipes don't. Or something of the sort... *not* that the default out of the box configuration leaves a NULL ACL on the \system32\cmd.exe (that is not a structural problem, it's configuration).
So long as someone doesn't show real facts when they claim to 'proove' something, it's FUD pure and simple AFAIConcerned.
Apart from the fact that IE is *not* integrated into the kernel (please stop spreading fud btw, it makes you look small), can you tell me you can install a linux build from 3 years ago, and run it a-ok without any code updates?
Win2k is a pretty young OS. It's bound to have patch requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a dream that in the future, there will a wireless network spanning that planet (a-la star trek subspace frequency).
I also have a dream that there will be IPv6 to support such a grandiose network.
As for security, in those years, thing will be 'much more secure'... like only some slight fraction of the servers today are.
I also see that you will not need to propagate your email address for doing usefull things (like registration to porn sites, or mega-corporations who think they own you)... like some of us are already doing today.
Ahhh..... it's just a dream.
=)
Law: sound contracts/licenses written and reviewed by lawyers.
The word ransom is inciting this general fear of "what if the terrorist runs away with the hostage" kind of reaction. -- chill out, we're not on a battle field, this is a licensing issue, and if done properly, parties will stick to their terms till the end...
That's why you have escrow agreements: a third party holds the source. Legal bindings etc...
I like moft, and I follow their technological advances closely... and both of these platforms have got me wondering if some really high up technical person just made the call without consulting the lawyers...
Hah! That would be sweet: having a mole inside Moft.
Imagine the day when people will be able to post links to Cowboy Neal's toaster for posting redundant articles!
I think people are affraid of the term web server because it combines two strong buzz words.
A pure and simple text web server is actually very easy to implement. It's an 'ask a question, get text back' protocol...
Unless they plan to stream out MPG feeds from your toasters, creating such a circuit might be just as simple as the circuitry in a fancy watch.
(It's not a novel concept either)
You're missing a conceptual point I made by saying It's like saying f'(x) = df/dx is 0 because df is almost zero...
To start off, take this statement from a reply post: I think that treating this as a kinetics problem is somewhat oversimplifying the situation. Subatomic particles don't hit cells in the same way that a hammer would
In effect, what you just said about the quark traveling through your body is quite uselss fact/argument too. The quark has the possibility of not touching you at all while passing through you... just like neutrinos can fly through the earth without ever touching anything... So the effect of this quark going through your body is most likely going to be to leave a disturbance trail - massive vibrations most likely... not a puncture hole.
Have you ever heard of rupturing cells by using sound alone? there's no impact there... it's all through vibrations.
The point you probably didn't understand about the purely formal equation f'(x) = df/dx is that using the argument that something is very small doesn't mean it won't do any damage.
Just to nit pick you back: Umm, last I heard something travelling at the speed of light must have an infinite mass..
You are plain wrong. Something traveling at the speed of light which has a mass must expend an infinite amount of energy to get to that speed. If it is at the speed of light, it must have zero mass (not infinite).
If you absolutely need a correction for my post, let me rephrase: To apply it back to this case: (a previous post mentionned it too) if that thing had a mass of only a gram, but was traveling at near the speed of light...
People like you really annoy the hell out of me, because there is no place for ego (and insults) in a scientific argument...
It's like saying f'(x) = df/dx is 0 because df is almost zero... you are neglecting the very important fact that dx is almost zero too.
To apply it back to this case: (a previous post mentionned it too) if that thing weighed only a gram, but was traveling at the speed of light, you'd probably vaporize from the energy it would release in you. In the same veine, if it were traveling at reasonable speeds, weighed only 1kg, but the impact point was concentrated into one square nanometer, the damage done might just as well rupture every single cell in your body.
Another example is icebergs, those giants move at something like 2-3 km/h, but the energy they would release if they hit a oil-platform is greater than the energy a 747 would if it were to crash into the platform at cruising speed.
The bottom line is you have to know how much energy the particle contains, and also, how much of it would be released in your body. The fact that it's small doesn't indicate anything whatsoever...
My uninformed guess is that if this thing can cause mini-earthquakes, it could be quite a powerful blast on the body.
Welcome to America, where happieness is bought.
/. should create a mod for you called "shaft" =)
that was the most articulate shaft I've read in a long time. Thanks man, it made my day.
Let the flaming begin... (ducks in terror).
If you feel up to it, go to SysInternals, and download FileMonitor, ProcessExplorer and WinObj. These three tools are hardcore.
Run your app in normal mode, and watch what it's doing with FileMonitor (if you see ACCESS_DENIED entries, you can fix that pretty easily).
Now, if for example, you have a CDROM burner, open WinObj (as an administrator), and go to /device/Cdrom1... check the properties, and select the security tab. You will have an ACL editor a-la file system. There you can allow others than just Administrator burn (write) permissions.
That's a very cool tool. And as you can notice, burn rights are ACL entries, not user token priviledges. BIG difference.
I'm sure there's the same thing for scanners.
All Zealots: please notice how winobj actually shows the real NT namespace. And just like any other system, it starts at /. Also notice /Device/Null, and /Device/PhysicalMemory...
Yes. Just like in NIX.
This relates to a previous post about how certain practical (mis)applications do not surmise the overal design.
Win32 developpers tend to be much more novice than UNIX pure breads I find, and I think it has to do with the fact that the main IDEs on Win are very nice and easy to push buttons on. (click "create win project", click "build", run)...
Going from this to Win32 being an insecure system, though, is a giant leap of (il)logic.
I use Win2k as a regular plain old user, and I am perfectly happy with it. And I don't need to log off, even if I want to install SPs or hotfixes...
Another perfect example of pointing fingers at others for your own incompetence.
IIS needs to run as system for a couple of reasons that aren't worth detailing. The issue was the there was no distinction between Local-System, and Network-System as there is now in XP.
I find it quite interesting that of all things, computers fail so often on these rockets.
I mean, I can see a seal leaking liquid oxygen, or some micro-crack in a weld... but computers? for crying out loud, it's one of the most common pieces of equipment on the planet.
sigh...
That's a noble attempt at anarchy, and basically being malicious for your own sake...
But I'm pretty sure they have logs, and they would pretty quickly be able to tell the same physical line was doing the 'sweep' as you call it.
Let me remind you were are still in november. This bug's been out for hardly 2 weeks.
You know, bugs aren't created on purpose. They aren't standard operating procedure. People make mistakes, and we need to face the facts that no software - I repeat - *no* software can be proven to be bug free.
So in the meantime, let's all just be realistic about this, and think about the potential damage that this post is going to cause.
Even think about the possible thousands of users who might just get so pissed off they throw out or stop using their computer... (that's a far fetched scenario, but it happens).
In the long run, it hurts everyone.
Wow. I can't believe this parent post actually got an 'interesting' mod. If anything I read it as a joke...
Moft/linux/unix zealotism aside, you think the reason an OS is good is because of the number it has suffixed on its name?
I know there actually are additions to the NT 5.1 kernel (so new Native calls), but I'm wondering if it wouldn't be backward compatible with NT 5.
Thank you for saying that out... there is nothing more valuable than a sysadmin who knows his platform.
I've been hearing a lot of moft-is-not-secure 'proofs' lately... I'm just wondering: has anyone actually proven that the OS is structuraly (ie by design) flawed?
A structural flaw for example would be that files have ACLs, but pipes don't. Or something of the sort... *not* that the default out of the box configuration leaves a NULL ACL on the \system32\cmd.exe (that is not a structural problem, it's configuration).
So long as someone doesn't show real facts when they claim to 'proove' something, it's FUD pure and simple AFAIConcerned.
Win2k is a pretty young OS. It's bound to have patch requirements.
Take Nike, they don't even have a monopoly, but they manufacture shoes at 5 cents a piece, and sell em for $60. What rent is that?