lanl.gov is not peer reviewed. It is a place that *some* (not even the majority) place their work so that others can read before it is published in a proper journal. Just because these authors are not mentioned there means nothing.
The apple II's had a very common data acquisition mobo that allowed all sorts of physics experiments to be done.
You could measure temperature in real time, trace a trajectory, and do other neat stuff.
Why upgrade when these experiments work just fine with the old apples?
It's physics, not computer science. The data is important, not the computer that records it.
You're absolutely right. Law enforcement should enfore the law equally. But you're analogy is dead wrong. This is more like a case where two people were robbed, one white family and one black family. If the police try to help the white people, but not the black people, we'd all be mad. That's the feeling the grandparent was going for. The feeling that if they do something about SCO and not the spammers...
Bogon stats, based on a google search or two, seems to be lists of bogus ip addresses. How does this have anything to do with backscattering measurement? Not being mean, I really want to know.
Sorry to say you're wrong. If someone takes root access on your machine (which the security vuln. mentioned in the article allowed an attacker to do) your box becomes the toy of the 0\/\/N3r, and can be used in any ddos or other illegal scheme they fancy. Does it matter if the
spam I'm getting comes from a hole produced by a virus
or a human hacker?
Just because compromising windows machines is down to an easily automated science (read virus), doesn't make
them more or less secure than a mac, if the mac has such
a large flaw as it recently did.
1. Enable wireless encryption (wep) and enable a password.
2. Look around the access point config for something called MAC access or something like that, and enter the MAC addresses for the machines you want to be allowed onto your network.
Neither are particularly dependable methods for keeping people off, but both will keep casual people from using your network.
And to crack a wep key, all you have to do is download some software, and wait a bit, and you've got access. If someone wants on, they can get on. Wep or not you've still got to be watchful.
Yeah. Step 2 in my plan is frequent log checking. But spoofing a mac is at least as hard as wep cracking - only someone who really wants into my network will try it.
If I really really cared about my network's security, I wouldn't use 802.11b.
Just because it doesn't have wep doesn't quite mean that they're unsecured. I don't use wep, but I only allow designated mac addresses onto my network, and make sure that any traffic I care about is either encrypted at the protocol level, or is ssh-tunneled to a wired machine.
I trust ssl much more than wep.
That is interesting. Perhaps you should email pj? I'd definately go mention this over on groklaw, and give as much detail about where you work as you are comfortable doing.
If they are lying about this, this would play into Red Hat and IBM's suits/coutersuits very well. I mean, we all know they lie to the press all the time, but something like this is just over the top.
With MS software, you're only a user. You have a license for one copy. You use it on one machine. With linux, the gpl gives you the right to make copies and distribute them.
Since you can (and likely do) distribute linux, you are liable for copyright infringment in a way that a windows user is not....you thought you have the right to distribute the code (which in windows you don't for sure), but if that code is shown to be infringing, then you really do not.
That is what sco means. Any distributor has potential legal liability.
That said, I really don't think sco has any code owned by them in linux.
This sort of reminds me of what they're doing with blue gene. Instead of using hot, ultra fast processors, they're using what amounts to 2 embeded processors per node and depending on kick ass networking to carry the load.
For parallel problems, sometimes faster processors is not better...
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I understand it, they exist always under threat. Again, I might be mistaken, but I really think mpeg2 is patented.
Ah, yes, yes it is patented.
MPEG2 is still patented, right? Free version still not possible I think (could be wrong tho).
lanl.gov is not peer reviewed. It is a place that *some* (not even the majority) place their work so that others can read before it is published in a proper journal. Just because these authors are not mentioned there means nothing.
The apple II's had a very common data acquisition mobo that allowed all sorts of physics experiments to be done. You could measure temperature in real time, trace a trajectory, and do other neat stuff. Why upgrade when these experiments work just fine with the old apples?
It's physics, not computer science. The data is important, not the computer that records it.
ZZ, :wq, :x are all valid synonyms in vim. I don't think they all work in vi, but all work in vim.
You're absolutely right. Law enforcement should enfore the law equally. But you're analogy is dead wrong. This is more like a case where two people were robbed, one white family and one black family. If the police try to help the white people, but not the black people, we'd all be mad. That's the feeling the grandparent was going for. The feeling that if they do something about SCO and not the spammers...
Well I guess the lying or incompetent question has been settled.
Bogon stats, based on a google search or two, seems to be lists of bogus ip addresses. How does this have anything to do with backscattering measurement? Not being mean, I really want to know.
Sorry to say you're wrong. If someone takes root access on your machine (which the security vuln. mentioned in the article allowed an attacker to do) your box becomes the toy of the 0\/\/N3r, and can be used in any ddos or other illegal scheme they fancy. Does it matter if the spam I'm getting comes from a hole produced by a virus or a human hacker?
Just because compromising windows machines is down to an easily automated science (read virus), doesn't make them more or less secure than a mac, if the mac has such a large flaw as it recently did.
Two popular options:
1. Enable wireless encryption (wep) and enable a password.
2. Look around the access point config for something called MAC access or something like that, and enter the MAC addresses for the machines you want to be allowed onto your network.
Neither are particularly dependable methods for keeping people off, but both will keep casual people from using your network.
And to crack a wep key, all you have to do is download some software, and wait a bit, and you've got access. If someone wants on, they can get on. Wep or not you've still got to be watchful.
But it still requires you to sniff it. Which, I admit is easier than cracking wep, but not by enough to make me worry too much.
Yeah. Step 2 in my plan is frequent log checking. But spoofing a mac is at least as hard as wep cracking - only someone who really wants into my network will try it. If I really really cared about my network's security, I wouldn't use 802.11b.
Just because it doesn't have wep doesn't quite mean that they're unsecured. I don't use wep, but I only allow designated mac addresses onto my network, and make sure that any traffic I care about is either encrypted at the protocol level, or is ssh-tunneled to a wired machine. I trust ssl much more than wep.
I can see it now...sort of a vigilante seti @home.
That is interesting. Perhaps you should email pj? I'd definately go mention this over on groklaw, and give as much detail about where you work as you are comfortable doing.
If they are lying about this, this would play into Red Hat and IBM's suits/coutersuits very well. I mean, we all know they lie to the press all the time, but something like this is just over the top.
...and the happy folks at Groklaw already have a statement up with arguments to effect that SCO is fibbing. They think the attack could be a hoax.
It's called FUD.
They mischaracterized your product from an anonymous source. How do you defend against that?
Nobody will still be using this program after 1999.
Acutally there is a bit of a difference.
With MS software, you're only a user. You have a license for one copy. You use it on one machine. With linux, the gpl gives you the right to make copies and distribute them.
Since you can (and likely do) distribute linux, you are liable for copyright infringment in a way that a windows user is not....you thought you have the right to distribute the code (which in windows you don't for sure), but if that code is shown to be infringing, then you really do not.
That is what sco means. Any distributor has potential legal liability.
That said, I really don't think sco has any code owned by them in linux.
Actually, I'm wrong. x^(1/2) is monotonically increasing. For some reason, I read x^(-1/2) which is monotonically decreasing. My bad.
Uh, x^(1/2) is a monotonically decreasing function that tends to zero.
It's called sarcasm.
Good, because it's also part of the intel roadmap for the itanium.
This sort of reminds me of what they're doing with blue gene. Instead of using hot, ultra fast processors, they're using what amounts to 2 embeded processors per node and depending on kick ass networking to carry the load.
For parallel problems, sometimes faster processors is not better...