I keep thinking of that DNS cache poisoning exploit thats going around. What if you could poison a cache, then have a box upstream of the home user pretending to be Norton Auto-Update, or whatever...I'd be surprised if they didn't hasve a secure connection on their end, but it could still be possible.
Then you could have people automatically downloading malicious code with a program that is meant to protect against that very possibility.
I don't know about the GP's home town, but here there is no good place to buy high end RAM...Not even talking about good brands, but simply about the ability to find something that'll be worth putting in a high-end desktop.
So I'm in the same boat, regarding mail-order RAM. Sure, I'll know soon enough if it's bad, but having to go through the bother of RMA'ing it is extremely annoying.
Had a job where we were setting up a pair of fail-over fileservers. We quoted the machines, custom-built, at about 4000 dollars for two, with about a terabyte of storage each. Nothing fancy, because we didn't NEED anything fancy. Decent RAM, not much CPU.
They cut that out in favor of buying two top - of - the - line servers from dell, for more than 9000 dollars. The dell machines tunred out to be troublesome...serious raid controller issues, which, of course, was a BIG DEAL. Ended up taking heat for it, even though it was their damn descision.
Bah. Weighed both sides? I don't think so. They have too much infrastructure tied up with intel.
However, by saying publicly, "We're thinking nice thoughts about AMD" they can pressure intel to lower their prices, so as not to lose business from one of the larger home pc manufacturers.
NO! NO! I AM NOT OBLIGATED TO VIEW YOUR CRAPPY AD!
I don't want to watch flash animation detailing some digestive tract problem I may or may not have! I don't want to know about exciting new opportunities in nursing! I don't want to see any more dishonest ads from Microsoft about how they can make my life complete and perfect!
I know it is an article of faith among advertisers that if they repeat the ad enough it will hardwire itself into the part of the brain that controls the wallet, but every time I see the same annoying ad I just get angrier and angrier. Why should I be forced to see their ad? If they could they'd put a pop-up in front of every site that wouldn't close or let you turn off your computer until you'd written 200 words of praise about their product.
So to hell with them. Let them whine about it. It takes two to enter into a contract, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to opt out. The site wants to block people who opt out of ads, so be it.
Explorer is part of the operating system, remember? So explorer exploits count as OS exploits, especially because a lot of the explorer exploits are arbitrary code execution exploits, which are beyond critical.
My ISP blocks outgoing port 25. So did my last ISP. It's not uncommon these days for an ISP to request that all your outgoing mail passes through their mailservers. Helps them keep the spam down.
That would only work if it were easy to figure what was infecting the computer based solely on the traffic it's sending out. It's more complicated that you'd think.
On the other hand, most people who don't know enough to keep their machines virus/trojan free are probably using the software that nearly every ISP sends out to "help" you connect to their services, which means they should be able to include enough diagnostic tools to be able to tell what's running on the machine.
Heh. When I was doing the CS BS thing, people used to ask me if I'd taken CS 110 or 101. If you were a major, you started with 111--basic programming, and skipped 110 (Advanced Excel, with a half-assed intro to programming using true basic), and 101--The "This is email", and advanced "Turning on the boxy thing" class.
I placed out of 111 (AP Exam), but I still had to take "Academic Writing" (English 110) even though I'd placed out of it as well. No justice.
Later I took "Academic Writing II" for some reason I no longer recall, and ended up getting a C because I informed the class at large, on the second day, that (despite what the prof seemed to think) it wasn't a required class. This caused a 90% decline in enrollment and stuck me with a goodly chuck of professorial illwill I was too naive to see on the horizon.
It's a bogus test. All Unix based systems are slower on the boot up than windows systems, unless they've been specifically stripped down to boot faster (e.g Knoppix).
I'll leave it to you to figure out why it's better for a Windows based system to reboot faster than a Unix based system.
It's certainly possible. The brain is highly adaptive.
Still, it'd be working against a couple million years of evolution grounded in processing light from a relatively narrow wavelength. I guess it would depend on how much of that "hardcoding" was done with the "hardware" (the eye) and how much was done with the "software" (the brain).
The same applies to computer security. I read the articles because I have a computer. I don't do networking these days, so it's more academic than anything else.
You know, that's a good idea. We could make a little idiot light that blinks in the upper right hand corner of the screen whenever something needs to be done to the computer.
Of course, if we did it it would imeediately be hijacked by spammers, and would blink forever until you bought their enlargements or whatever.
The question is whether or not the brain would be able to process a spectrum that it has never been able to percieve naturally. It is interesting to think that, for someone blind from birth, this may be less of a problem than for someone who has been able to see his whole life, and whose brain has adapted to the visible spectrum here.
It would definitely be an interesting experiement, though I think it is possible in the long run that the chip would indeed have to translate to a "false color spectrum" in order for the brain to correctly interpret the input.
Electricians, maybe, because no one really understands what we work with, and they think it might kill them if they play with it.
But janitors? I don't remember the last time I saw a janitor pull a 20 hour day to keep a mission critical component running. I don't remember the last time I saw a janitor spending months setting up security around the building, or sorting a terabyte of data into a readable report. Or designing applications...yes people still do that.
What it really means is you have half as many people in a department that's trying to support ten year old bloatware on a shoestring budget, while inventing new tech in their spare time to fill in gaps that ought to be filled with shiny new applications, and aren't because management is still smarting from the giant tech budgets of 7 years ago...while at the same time we're dealing with jackasses like you who think we're pretty much the same as janitors.
Thanks eversomuch. Better pray you never need anything from me.
Well I haven't seen anything yet that substantially conflicts with what I claimed in the first place. I admit I wasn't sure about the actual charges...My main memories of that were the massive whining about how unfair it was that they could be charged for blocking a highway.
Not bad for a ten year old memory.
If you've got the full lexis subscription, I'd be curious to see what the final charges against Otis Rolley were.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that they were separated from said power by a really big ocean helped a bit as well.
I guess I'm the only one who bothered to RTFA.
The article was from "The Hindu" http://www.hindu.com, which bills itself as "India's online newspaper".
Which is probably why they care that the guy is INDIAN.
Cities could be made more enjoyable through increased greenspace, decreased auto traffic, and increased, efficient, public transportation.
And frankly, more enjoyable is a crappy excuse for such a slobbish waste of resources. It's more enjoyable to do a lot of things that we ought not do.
I keep thinking of that DNS cache poisoning exploit thats going around. What if you could poison a cache, then have a box upstream of the home user pretending to be Norton Auto-Update, or whatever...I'd be surprised if they didn't hasve a secure connection on their end, but it could still be possible.
Then you could have people automatically downloading malicious code with a program that is meant to protect against that very possibility.
This could only have been proposed by Orrin "The RIAA should be allowed to destroy filesharers computers" Hatch.
As, indeed, it was.
Tape sucks. If I never have to haggle with another tempermental tape backup, I'll be a happy puppy.
Whether this will be my long-wished for tape killer will depend on the cost of the media, and how long it can be stored before it starts to degrade.
Hear hear.
I don't know about the GP's home town, but here there is no good place to buy high end RAM...Not even talking about good brands, but simply about the ability to find something that'll be worth putting in a high-end desktop.
So I'm in the same boat, regarding mail-order RAM. Sure, I'll know soon enough if it's bad, but having to go through the bother of RMA'ing it is extremely annoying.
Had a job where we were setting up a pair of fail-over fileservers. We quoted the machines, custom-built, at about 4000 dollars for two, with about a terabyte of storage each. Nothing fancy, because we didn't NEED anything fancy. Decent RAM, not much CPU.
They cut that out in favor of buying two top - of - the - line servers from dell, for more than 9000 dollars. The dell machines tunred out to be troublesome...serious raid controller issues, which, of course, was a BIG DEAL. Ended up taking heat for it, even though it was their damn descision.
total snafu.
Bah. Weighed both sides? I don't think so. They have too much infrastructure tied up with intel.
However, by saying publicly, "We're thinking nice thoughts about AMD" they can pressure intel to lower their prices, so as not to lose business from one of the larger home pc manufacturers.
Business as usual.
In most places, however, the legal age of consent is lower than 18. California is not one of those places, however.
That equates advertisers with cooperative trustworthy people.
I think it's clear that you are correct, and that social contracts are necesarry and desirable.
However I don't see how that immedately translates to advertisers. How am I obligated to put money in their pockets?
NO! NO! I AM NOT OBLIGATED TO VIEW YOUR CRAPPY AD!
I don't want to watch flash animation detailing some digestive tract problem I may or may not have! I don't want to know about exciting new opportunities in nursing! I don't want to see any more dishonest ads from Microsoft about how they can make my life complete and perfect!
I know it is an article of faith among advertisers that if they repeat the ad enough it will hardwire itself into the part of the brain that controls the wallet, but every time I see the same annoying ad I just get angrier and angrier. Why should I be forced to see their ad? If they could they'd put a pop-up in front of every site that wouldn't close or let you turn off your computer until you'd written 200 words of praise about their product.
So to hell with them. Let them whine about it. It takes two to enter into a contract, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to opt out. The site wants to block people who opt out of ads, so be it.
Explorer is part of the operating system, remember? So explorer exploits count as OS exploits, especially because a lot of the explorer exploits are arbitrary code execution exploits, which are beyond critical.
My ISP blocks outgoing port 25. So did my last ISP. It's not uncommon these days for an ISP to request that all your outgoing mail passes through their mailservers. Helps them keep the spam down.
That would only work if it were easy to figure what was infecting the computer based solely on the traffic it's sending out. It's more complicated that you'd think.
On the other hand, most people who don't know enough to keep their machines virus/trojan free are probably using the software that nearly every ISP sends out to "help" you connect to their services, which means they should be able to include enough diagnostic tools to be able to tell what's running on the machine.
Heh. When I was doing the CS BS thing, people used to ask me if I'd taken CS 110 or 101. If you were a major, you started with 111--basic programming, and skipped 110 (Advanced Excel, with a half-assed intro to programming using true basic), and 101--The "This is email", and advanced "Turning on the boxy thing" class.
I placed out of 111 (AP Exam), but I still had to take "Academic Writing" (English 110) even though I'd placed out of it as well. No justice.
Later I took "Academic Writing II" for some reason I no longer recall, and ended up getting a C because I informed the class at large, on the second day, that (despite what the prof seemed to think) it wasn't a required class. This caused a 90% decline in enrollment and stuck me with a goodly chuck of professorial illwill I was too naive to see on the horizon.
It's a bogus test. All Unix based systems are slower on the boot up than windows systems, unless they've been specifically stripped down to boot faster (e.g Knoppix).
I'll leave it to you to figure out why it's better for a Windows based system to reboot faster than a Unix based system.
It's certainly possible. The brain is highly adaptive.
Still, it'd be working against a couple million years of evolution grounded in processing light from a relatively narrow wavelength. I guess it would depend on how much of that "hardcoding" was done with the "hardware" (the eye) and how much was done with the "software" (the brain).
Like the car commericals that have you ripping across the tundra at 80 miles an hour in your SUV?
Or the other car commericals that show some guy in a sedan doing 90 on Route 1 (The road on the side of the cliff over the ocean)?
Or anything from Ikea? Or ANYTHING from the drug companies.
It's not just computers. All ads make it look easy. People should know better.
I do. I have a cat.
The same applies to computer security. I read the articles because I have a computer. I don't do networking these days, so it's more academic than anything else.
I read articles about home security as well.
Seems the best policy to be informed.
You know, that's a good idea. We could make a little idiot light that blinks in the upper right hand corner of the screen whenever something needs to be done to the computer.
Of course, if we did it it would imeediately be hijacked by spammers, and would blink forever until you bought their enlargements or whatever.
The question is whether or not the brain would be able to process a spectrum that it has never been able to percieve naturally. It is interesting to think that, for someone blind from birth, this may be less of a problem than for someone who has been able to see his whole life, and whose brain has adapted to the visible spectrum here.
It would definitely be an interesting experiement, though I think it is possible in the long run that the chip would indeed have to translate to a "false color spectrum" in order for the brain to correctly interpret the input.
Electricians, maybe, because no one really understands what we work with, and they think it might kill them if they play with it.
But janitors? I don't remember the last time I saw a janitor pull a 20 hour day to keep a mission critical component running. I don't remember the last time I saw a janitor spending months setting up security around the building, or sorting a terabyte of data into a readable report. Or designing applications...yes people still do that.
What it really means is you have half as many people in a department that's trying to support ten year old bloatware on a shoestring budget, while inventing new tech in their spare time to fill in gaps that ought to be filled with shiny new applications, and aren't because management is still smarting from the giant tech budgets of 7 years ago...while at the same time we're dealing with jackasses like you who think we're pretty much the same as janitors.
Thanks eversomuch. Better pray you never need anything from me.
Well I haven't seen anything yet that substantially conflicts with what I claimed in the first place. I admit I wasn't sure about the actual charges...My main memories of that were the massive whining about how unfair it was that they could be charged for blocking a highway.
Not bad for a ten year old memory.
If you've got the full lexis subscription, I'd be curious to see what the final charges against Otis Rolley were.
No offense, but that's a brief, written about part of the charges, well after the fact. Where's the full story?
And the last guy was the guy who got the felony charge, as I recall.