Actually I would blame the person who put private information on the Internet. Even with no obvious way for anyone to know it exists, it is still unprotected and out in the open.
I have found hidden files in directories by looking at the location of images and looking in those directories. Those directories and some of the files were not linked to anywere. They were not private although the person was surprised when I asked about them.
My philosophy on security: If you security settings are not set to paranoid, they are set to low.
I have actually looked up an old girlfriend that way. Her parents had their own business and a website so it was easy. The good news is that she graduated college. Using betterwhois.com I was able to get an address. That took 10 to 15 minutes and I did that a few years ago. I guess it's a good thing that I am not a bad person. ** evil grin **
I say why blame just one person/group/entity. Let's blame the people who publicly post the personal information AND the people who use that information to hurt people. But let's not blame Google or any other search engine for doing too good of a job.
Yes, you are a cynical bastard, and the world needs more of you.
And on a totally unrelated thought. . .
Online search engines lift cover of privacy
Is Yuki Noguchi on crack? Google does not do anything to privacy. All Google does is make it easier to find publicly available information. Maybe "Online search engines act as a catalyst to find private information" would be more a accurate title. ". ..cover of privacy" makes it sound like it was protected in the first place.
Sharing information that can cause great harm and easily done may not be illegal, but it is a stupid thing to do. Sure you could post online a step-by-step how-to on making a chemical weapon using only common household products and say not to do it, but that would be stupid and no good could possibly come from it.
Anyone who has been through the Windows API could easily write a malicious program to delete all files and such. We don't need some jaggoff teenager to automate the process for us. The only slightly tricky part about the hole thing is getting someone/something to execute the malicious program.
The people who write these are not providing any service to legitimate programers. If they want to educate people then write an essay or report on how the process works. Don't provide the world with an executable that does the work for you.
The Internet is not Burger King and a computer virus is not a burger -- you should not Have it your way or made to order.
As for Windows not being bullet proof when it comes to malware, just because you can throw a rock and cause a window to come crashing down doesn't mean it's the owners fault for not having a stronger window. Still if your window is in a bad neighborhood (like the Internet) you should not be surprised when it does happen.
If you don't like analogies then you should not have read the preceding paragraph.
Personally I would rather have a Linux Module/Driver Standard for drivers that would (almost) never change allowing the same modules to work across all future versions of Linux. I doubt things will ever be that way. But I can dream, can't I? Can't I??? Windows makes things simple with binary drivers after all. In fact there are several versions of Window Drivers for Win 9.x, NT, etc. . .
Actually in the long run having the source code and/or specs to build a driver/module would be better in that the OS driver spec may change, but all you would need to do is rewrite the driver to work under the new system. (Yes, easier said than done.)
On the other hand binaries are so much easier to deal with though. Install them and they either work, kinda work, or don't.
Maybe those IBM-Linux commercials are right, "the future is open" because with closed source software and companies not supporting every single platform for ever the closed-source software is destand to become unsupported and eventually become stuck in the past. Does Windows XP support all old hardware that may still work in your computer?
Dant makes a good point about taking a little longer to read 64 bits than 32.
Still, the word size of the processor is not a major factor in now fast a CPU is. Finding fater ways to process instructions, caches, and how fast you run the CPUs at make more of a difference. I am probably leaving out a lot of other major factors. Oh well.
The article is a bit interesting although it seems very amateurish. Just my personal opinion.
In fact the same logic means that with all else being equal an 8 bit processor is slightly faster than a 16 bit processor and a 16 bit processor is slightly faster than a 32 bit processor. But of course all else is never equal so things are usually the other way around.
Has anyone heard of a set (family?) of processors that were exactly the same EXCEPT for the processor's word size?
Linux probably does contain SCO-touched code. The real question is about the license. SCO didn't create the Linux or UNIX code, they bought rights to it. But before that happened the code was releaced to the public (under some sort of license). It's actually more complicated than that involving mulitple deals with multiple companies.
What if SCO is just trying to get compensation for its stolen code?
If true, any normal business would deal with it, except we all know how cheap linux users/coders can be.
If IBM took SCO's code and put it into Linux then SCO should ONLY go after IBM. Nobody else would be responsible. BTW, I actually bought a copy of RedHat GNU/Linux. It wasn't cheap.
Its the Linux Bigots in the world that will destroy the software movement.
? ? ? The Open Software Movement? All other software kinda is apart of the movement known as business. The "Linux Bigots" normally have nothing to do with the software development itself. Many people live in their own world. Why worry about those living in their own Linux-fantasy? Remember, when you read anything posted on SlashDot (or anything else written in the world) know your biases and don't get upset over things.
Okay, I'll bite. How will the "Linux Bigots" destroy the software movment?
They dont know how to market, or even how to code very well.
Now you are just lumping everyone into a single group and saying they can't market or code well. That's just wrong and makes you as bad as the "Linux Bigots."
Their strengths are in their shear numbers, and the fact that they value their work at nothing (which would be true for the majority of coders)..
I have yet to meet anyone who did not value their own code. Value is how much one thinks something is worth. Cost is how much a product/service is sold for. Volunteering one's time to accomplish something with no monetary reward can be very rewarding. (Some OpenSource projects are actually financed so some people are paid for the work.)
Im sure some Holier-than-thou I know everything but I dont have a real job linux user will come up and try to argue with what I've said.
Hi, I am the Holier-than-thou MrNybbles. I enjoy pointing out when people are way out there and are just as bad as the people on the other side of the extream. Who are you oh anonymous one?
But to tell you the truth, I've heard it. I've heard it a 1000 times on this fucking website, and It didnt make sense the first time I heard it, and it just keeps getting louder and whinier.
The story is entitled "Your Rights Online: SCO Lobbying Congress Against Open Code". If you don't want to hear that SCO sucks then why did you post? Anyway nothing should make sence to any of use since at the heart of the hole thing are licenses, and such.
I always liked how the Mac OS did things. Apple puts a lot of effort into its design and is usually not afraid to throw everything away and do something new. Sometimes they just hang on to things for no good reason. I hope they finally got rid of that stupid Chooser accessory that should have died when OS 7.x came out. I would switch back to a Mac except I can get old PCs on the cheap and throw Debian GNU/Linux on them. (Yes, I am cheap at times.)
"And since I know everyone is already readying their "Ah ha! Windows sucks!" posts, remember that running unknown code is NOT a good idea on ANY operating system."
Actually with the Windows NT line this should not be that big of a problem if people check e-mail from an unprivlaged account instead of as an admin. Windows users should take most of the blame since this.exe doesn't seem to execute itself.
"If everyone used Linux instead of Windows, then the virus writers would write viruses for linux instead!"
If everyone used Linux then there would be no other OS to write viruses for.:p
There is some truth to that as people would have exploited SendMail until people became smart enough to use something else, but Linux Distros give you a choice of what software you have installed. I can't remove Internet Explorer from my Windows box. I would like to just in case there is an unknown exploit that will be exploited in the future, but I can't. I am stuck running Mozilla and using ZoneAlarm to firewall IE in.
This still does not solve the stupid user problem. A stupid user is a potential security risk on any platform, limited only by what the admin allows. And when that stupid user is his/her own admin . . . *shutter*
People seem to be either on the side of Windows or on the side of Linux. Both have flaws. And why do I never hear "If everyone ran *BSD instead of Windows, then the virus writers would write viruses for *BSD instead"?
Windows gets those flaws exploited more often with less solutions to the problem. Linux packages with flaws can be removed and replaced by a different package, (like replacing SendMail with exim,) or patched. Microsoft gets all the blame because it is almost always Microsoft software that is exploited. On Linux Boxes however, packeges that get exploted get a bad reputation (like SendMail).
Linux Distros usually fall short in being idiot-user friendly. By the time I figured out how to change my monitor resolution, I knew more about FreeX86 and the XF86Config file than I had wanted to know.
Yes, I know. It should be GNU/Linux Distros. Sorry.
Praise time.
Naffer is right, Windows should not be blamed for this problem.
"Those sites have to pay the bills somehow, and for many, ads are the way to go."
MSN and ESPN are not exactly companies short on cash. If they can't get their online businesses to make money instead of loosing money then they are doing something wrong.
Most of us are aware that the Internet isn't really free. We the web browsers usually pay an ISP or put up with an ISP's adds to pay for the "free" Internet access. The same is for those who provide Internet content. It costs something to be connected and costs something to keep it running (and that cost is not always money.)
Then there is the perversion of the Internet(motly the World Wide Web). The Internet was created to share information in a platform independent way, not to pop up endless adds, not to display animated adds jumping around, not to run code like JavaScript, and Visual Basic, and expecially not to run ActiveX controlls.
Yes, a lot of what has been done is really cool and things on the Internet should change and grow, but the changes really should be for the better. If your website only works right on an IE browser but not on ANY other, there is something wrong. If a binary or script can be automatically run, something is wrong. Any time you add something to the Internet that only takes something away from the people, it is a perversion!
So what does this have to do with Internet adds? This is another change to the Internet that does not improve anything. In fact it makes things worse. It will at least cost some people browsing the Internet money, and annoy us all.
So what do we do? (1) E-mail the companies using this service and tell them you will stop using the service if they continue run such commercials. (2) Stop using the services. (3) If only one company is going to be spitting out the adds, time to do a little local DNS editing or block traffic from those spicific Internet domains. (4) It sounds like it is a new type of file since it loads compleatly before playing. Switch to a web browser that does not support it.
"The only format that loads completely before it is allowed to play, the Full Screen Superstitial is guaranteed to play perfectly for every consumer, every time."
Okay, so how does this format load and play when I browse the web using the text-based LYNX browser? How much is a guarantee worth when it is impossible to deliver?
So exactly why is it good business sence to piss off your customers with adds? I get pissed off going to a Movie theater and see TV commercials and go to other theaters.
Not all websites are free of charge. Ever been to a website that requires you to login? Some of those charge a fee for an account. Those services are usually worth it (or they would have gone under).
"The Internet is my tool; I refuse to be the tool of the Internet." -- MrNybbles
How to make Adds NOT piss people off
Many DVDs put adds/previews/whatever in a bonus section of the DVD. MAKE ADDS OPTIONAL!
In magazines I can skip the add pages. In addition, some of those adds are actually more interesting than the magazine content itself. MAKE IT UNINTRUSIVE! MAKE IT INTERESTING!
Nice FUD, security n00b. Like all good FUD, its heavy on anecdotes and light on facts.
I took the time to tell you what was wrong with your arguments and even quoted your post for easy refrence and the best you can do is call me a noob and say I am light on the facts. Do you blow everyone off that way or just the people you can't reply to with a solid argument?
First of all, what I wrote is not FUD. At most it would be misinformation and what I wrote is not even that. How could what I have said put Fear, Uncertainty, or Doubt into anyone that is unjustified. Did I say anything that you can prove is a lie? Back up what you have said.
Second, I am not a security newbie, and am not a noob. If you disagree then define what a newbie or noob is and say why I fit that description. Back up what you have said.
Third, FUD is usually not anecdotes but lies and half truths. Also, what I posted in my last reply is not an anecdote but an example. An anecdote is the telling of an interesting or humorous incident. My firend loosing the ability to connect to the Internet was not funny.
Fourth, Microsoft left many security holes unpatched cuasing lists such ashttp://www.pivx.com/larholm/unpatched/ to be made. Unfortunatly it looks like Microsoft talked them into taking down the list.
Okay, so when was the last time you saw the Linux Kernel people or the GNU people refuse to patch a known exploit?
I also pointed out that the Linux Kenrel exploit could be done remotly, something that you had totally missed.
Does anyone else see the irony of Ms t0ny accusing me of being light on facts and yet backing up nothing that she has said?
Windows is not perfect. Linux and Gnu software is not perfect. Apple products are not perfect. If someone mad a lean, efficient OS that did everything, was secure and never screwed up I would buy it. I am still looking.
Okay, now that I have thrown a few facts your way, do you have the balls to refute or apologize?
if they can physically gain access to the computer. This is what this linux bug entails.
Sigh. Once again, let me expain something to all you pseudo-expert security n00bs here: If somebody can get physical access to your computer, you have already lost. If I can gain physical access to a linux server, I could just unplug it and remove the hard drives. Wow, a security breach that only took me five minutes! Not only that, but my 'exploit' is platform independant, too. Since I have posted it here, I'll throw you a bone and make it an 'Open Source' exploit.
I think you are missing the point. These people are not worried about someone walking in and taking hardware, they are worried about someone sneaking into the system and using it as a zombie or steal information without anyone knowing about it.
You also missed the obvous, this bug can, in theory, be exploited remotly given the right kind of access.
I wonder how long the exploit that r00ted Caldera was in the wild for?
It doesn't really matter how long the bug/exploit existed. What matters is how big of a problem the exploit is and how fast it is fixed. Microsoft tends to take forever to fix it's bugs and it doesn't always do that right. Some patches would undo other patches and one of my friends ran Windows Update and it broke his ability to connect to the Internet.
To take advantage of the mremap() syscall bug a person would either need to be able to run an executable on the Linux Box or be able to get some poorly written program to do it. And what business do most programs have calling mremap() anyway? This is not an easy bug to exploit. I would say that this exploit is not that big of a problem for most people and was fixed quickly. For people running a system where the admin was stupid enough to give untrustworthy people a login accout or somehow the ability to run executables, well, they should have been expecting something bad to happen.
But since you guys taut how supposedly secure Linux is over Windows,. ..
Why the hell are you comparing a Kernel to a collection of Operating Systems and Operating Environments (Windows 3.X 9X are not actually sperating systems) ?!?
Most of the exploits of a Linux Distro are from the third party packages. I don't ever remember seeing anyone faulting Microsoft for a security hole in Windows caused by some third-party software. That Caldara exploit was most likely in a distro package, not Linux. Please get your terminology down before you pretend to know something.
Almost makes one want to take their head out of the sand and look at the REAL world!
Yah, and guess where your head is stuck? I'll give you a hint, it's not the sand.:p
"Windows is better because. ... Linux is better because. . . Mac is better because. . . Whoever sets the terms of the argument always wins (unless that person has no idea how to argue correctly)" -- MrNybbles
Doesn't the blocking of ads violate the terms of use of some sites? MS is very pedantic abut people obeying their own EULA, yet they create a software feature to violate someone elses. Hypocrits.
This reminds me of GeoCities where people with a GeoCities homepage (as they call it) were not allowed to put in HTML, JavaScript, or anything else that blocked or altered the adds. I have never heard of an EULA that had anything to do with agreeing to not block popup adds or add images.
Even if an EULA forbid people browsing the web from blocking the popup adds that would be very stupid because there is no way to inforce such an agreement and stop people from using Squid Guard and such software. Besides, HTML is an interpreted language. It's up to the web browser to figure out how it should look in the end.
Maybe someone could make an EULA that forbids blocking any images on the web page, altering the text size, defult font, colors, and forbids the use of text-only browsers such as lynx. If anyone does let me know so we can sterilize those people and their descendants so we can rid the gene pool of such people.:)
"A series of seemingly innocuous default settings can cause an affected Mac OS X machine to trust a malicious machine on a network for user, group, and volume mounting settings."
So an attacker who can gain access to your network -- over a wired connection or wirelessly -- can trick an affected system into trusting a rogue machine, and when the compromised machine reboots, take it over and even attack other systems on the network.
Okay, so the article is saying that by tricking a Mac into mounting my drive and having that Mac reboot I can magically take it over????
This article seems to be just an excuse to bash Macs. Very little is talking about the actual security problem.
Anyway I find it hard to believe that those Macs have the remote volume mounting features on by default since most Mac users probably would not use such a feature.
Too bad the author did not pull his head out of his you-know-where to tell us anything useful like how dificult it is to pull off such an attack. If it is only a problem on a local network then the atricle blows things way out of proportion. If you could pull this off over the Internet then a Dial-up user would get a new IP address and would need to be tracked down again.
Ultimately, those on the Mac fringe have to face facts: Panther and Jaguar were not better at outrunning vulnerabilities than Windows.
You don't "outrun" vulnerabilities, you avoid creating them. So just because someone found one (probably) weak-ass vulnerability in Macs, Windows is magically on par with Macs as far as security goes.
I would be more convinced if I saw a side-by-side list of all known Mac & Window vulnerabilities. The author of the article needs to be drug into a dark ally and have some sense beaten into him.
Too bad you couldn't wait any longer. I am still waiting for Windows to come out of beta. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
You are lucky though, my first Windows OS is Windows 98 (First Lousy Edition.) I got so pissed off with Windows I eventually switched to Linux. It's not anywhere near a perfect OS, but it gets the job done without pissing me off.
Oh great, I just pissed off the Windows zealots by saying Windows in unstable and pissed off the Linux zealots by saying Linux isn't perfect and not calling it GNU/Linux. And what about the OS/2 zealots? I didn't even mention OS/2! I am so screwed, and not in the fun way!
I will sleep much better knowing that I will have power (NRC), People permoting Science (NSF), and Social Security which I will pay into all my life and not get my money's worth (SSA).
Who needs the Department of Agriculture anyway? It's not like crops will stop growing if the compuers are hacked, right?
As for the DOD getting a D, well it already has two D's so how much could a third D hurt?
The EPA got a C. So what if they are hacked. It's not like all of a sudden I can't see the mountains in California, I can't see them now anyway. What's the worst that could happen? Someone hacks the EPA, screws up the computers and. .., and what? The EPA looses track of who polluted what maybe?
**cough never underestimate the human potential to create chaos cough**
let the lagging out of Socom and other ps2 games get even worse.
Oh, you don't have any faith in New AOL 9.0 Optimized?
I hope by "Optimized" they mean they are now using a normal TCP/IP protocol instead of the custom AOL protocol stuff that seems to have no real reason to exist even if it made sence in the beginning.
The law just doesn't work that way. Prisons cost money and in the US we just don't have enough room in the current prisons to keep people for the entire length the sentence. So in these cases they did not pay "theirt debt to society in jail[sic]."
Arizona actually does some prisons the right way. Prisoners live in tents in fenced in areas in the middle of the hot desert and the food given to them costs less than the food given to the guard dogs.
As for "crewl[sic] and ususual punishment", how is a public notice that someone is a bad person cruel? The person is not harmed and other people have the right to discriminate against such a person. How is it unusual? It is sometimes announced when a person has been accused of a crime so why not announce when they are let back on the streets?
If the people really are still a danger to the public then executing those people would probably be the best thing to do. This would cut down on the cost of building new prisons and we could get rid of the endless appeals but no, criminals have rights too.
And for many people in jail the crime they are most guilty of is not being able to afford a good lawyer(lier?). In an imperfect world sometimes an imperfect solution is the best way to go. Compromise.
I had problems with two different major versions of RedHat GNU/Linux Distros. I actually managed to lock up the X Window Server just by clicking on an archive file and the archive program would lock everything up almost every time.
I then switched to Debian (unstable) and everything runs stable.
Yes, the production(right/wrong term?) RedHat I ordered online is unstable and the free unstable Debian is rock solid. Life is full of contradictions. Live with it.:)
At any rate the point is if you are using a distro of GNU/Linux that has problems, switch to another distro (or OS). For me RedHat was nearly as bad as my Windows 98 so I tossed it. If you actually are happy using Windows then good for you. No need to replace it. (No real need to pay money to upgrade either.)
Why do Microsoft and RedHat sacrifice stability for ease of use and flashyness? **coughMONEYcough** I don't know, but I don't use products releaced by either company because the continue to releace garbage as a product (but your results may vary.) I have no brand loyality, but I do remember when I have been pissed off.
Why not do what my friend Mike does when he has a problem with a bad cable and just jiggle it a little? It works great for his monitor cable so why not for a giant bundle of fiberoptics/wires/whatever in the ocean? What could possably go wrong? Jiggling the cable has got to be cheaper than going down to BestBuy and buying a new cable and running it from the US to the UK. Don't get the extended warrenty though, it's not worth it!
I doubt if they sweat bullets about the fact that a bunch of amateur sites on the Internet use Apache instead. Really, IIS isn't even focused on 'Pictures of Our Cats' websites.
People who want to put up a site with pictures of cats usually get a geocities/tripod/insert-free-service-here website.
There are many reasons to run your own webserver (some of them are dumb reasons) and anyone taking the time to actually install Apache is not going to be putting up a few pictures of Fluffy and MrTinkles.
And who would pay $$$ for a MS server when they could go down to there local UNIX/Linux users group (http://tfug.org/) with your server and be nice enough to let people show off by doing all the work for you. Most of them are very pedantic people.
There are two main types of Win32 executables: the GUI type and the Console type. (I'll ignore the POSIX and other subsystems for now.) Sure the Console Win32 programs are almost identical to the old DOS programs, but the comment you are quoting is refering to the GUI windows programs which often ignore the command line.
A Windows command line will not allow me to do stuff like open up a.bmp file in Photoshop and convert it to a.jpeg file. I need to run the program, open the file, then save the file, then exit the program. With a command line everything is one step (if you can figure out what on earth to type.)
Actually SCO might be doing the world a favor. Without Linux do to the special effects and stuff people might actually be forced to make movies that entertain people using plot and a decent story.
Don't get me wrong, I liked Toxic Advenger and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, but when was the last time a movie came out that people didn't bitch about?
What if your exit got moved since they drove by?
on
Who Makes MapQuest's Maps?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
In Tucson the I10 and I19 are under heavy construction so I wonder how long it will take for those guys to visit Tucson and get the maps updated. In the last two years several freeway exits have been removed from the freeway to never be reopened. Some roads now require drivers to get off at an earlier offramp and take a frontage road to the street you want.
I know that sites like mapsonus.com have a link to e-mail them about wrong/changed roads on the maps, but if it's really just up to two guys driving around then maybe it will take a wile.
Even worse, what if they actually take people at there word! "Oh yes, you can get off at the Willmot exit now and drive all the way to the Park Place mall ever sence they closed the military base. You can just drive across that area and nobody will mind."
If anyone is ever stupid enough to actually try that I hope they pick a mellow yellow alert level day to do it. They might go nuts if the national threat level is orange or red or something.
I have also noticed that some of these services will give me directions like "turn right onto unnamed road." The road really isn't unnamed, it just doesn't have a street sign. I guess asking the city for the info is too much work.
I am not suggesting that the people running Tucson or any other city actually know what they are doing. ..
Anyway, none of these map services guarantee the results so before you follow the directions you should ask someone who actually knows that area (if you can find someone like that) expecially if there has been road construction. It might actually be faster taking the long way.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually I would blame the person who put private information on the Internet. Even with no obvious way for anyone to know it exists, it is still unprotected and out in the open.
I have found hidden files in directories by looking at the location of images and looking in those directories. Those directories and some of the files were not linked to anywere. They were not private although the person was surprised when I asked about them.
My philosophy on security: If you security settings are not set to paranoid, they are set to low.
I say why blame just one person/group/entity. Let's blame the people who publicly post the personal information AND the people who use that information to hurt people. But let's not blame Google or any other search engine for doing too good of a job.
And on a totally unrelated thought. . .
Is Yuki Noguchi on crack? Google does not do anything to privacy. All Google does is make it easier to find publicly available information. Maybe "Online search engines act as a catalyst to find private information" would be more a accurate title. ". .Anyone who has been through the Windows API could easily write a malicious program to delete all files and such. We don't need some jaggoff teenager to automate the process for us. The only slightly tricky part about the hole thing is getting someone/something to execute the malicious program.
The people who write these are not providing any service to legitimate programers. If they want to educate people then write an essay or report on how the process works. Don't provide the world with an executable that does the work for you.
The Internet is not Burger King and a computer virus is not a burger -- you should not Have it your way or made to order.
As for Windows not being bullet proof when it comes to malware, just because you can throw a rock and cause a window to come crashing down doesn't mean it's the owners fault for not having a stronger window. Still if your window is in a bad neighborhood (like the Internet) you should not be surprised when it does happen.
If you don't like analogies then you should not have read the preceding paragraph.
Actually in the long run having the source code and/or specs to build a driver/module would be better in that the OS driver spec may change, but all you would need to do is rewrite the driver to work under the new system. (Yes, easier said than done.)
On the other hand binaries are so much easier to deal with though. Install them and they either work, kinda work, or don't.
Maybe those IBM-Linux commercials are right, "the future is open" because with closed source software and companies not supporting every single platform for ever the closed-source software is destand to become unsupported and eventually become stuck in the past. Does Windows XP support all old hardware that may still work in your computer?
Then again maybe I just think too much.
Still, the word size of the processor is not a major factor in now fast a CPU is. Finding fater ways to process instructions, caches, and how fast you run the CPUs at make more of a difference. I am probably leaving out a lot of other major factors. Oh well.
The article is a bit interesting although it seems very amateurish. Just my personal opinion.
In fact the same logic means that with all else being equal an 8 bit processor is slightly faster than a 16 bit processor and a 16 bit processor is slightly faster than a 32 bit processor. But of course all else is never equal so things are usually the other way around.
Has anyone heard of a set (family?) of processors that were exactly the same EXCEPT for the processor's word size?
? ? ? The Open Software Movement? All other software kinda is apart of the movement known as business. The "Linux Bigots" normally have nothing to do with the software development itself. Many people live in their own world. Why worry about those living in their own Linux-fantasy? Remember, when you read anything posted on SlashDot (or anything else written in the world) know your biases and don't get upset over things.
Okay, I'll bite. How will the "Linux Bigots" destroy the software movment?
Now you are just lumping everyone into a single group and saying they can't market or code well. That's just wrong and makes you as bad as the "Linux Bigots." I have yet to meet anyone who did not value their own code. Value is how much one thinks something is worth. Cost is how much a product/service is sold for. Volunteering one's time to accomplish something with no monetary reward can be very rewarding. (Some OpenSource projects are actually financed so some people are paid for the work.) Hi, I am the Holier-than-thou MrNybbles. I enjoy pointing out when people are way out there and are just as bad as the people on the other side of the extream. Who are you oh anonymous one? The story is entitled "Your Rights Online: SCO Lobbying Congress Against Open Code". If you don't want to hear that SCO sucks then why did you post? Anyway nothing should make sence to any of use since at the heart of the hole thing are licenses, and such.I always liked how the Mac OS did things. Apple puts a lot of effort into its design and is usually not afraid to throw everything away and do something new. Sometimes they just hang on to things for no good reason. I hope they finally got rid of that stupid Chooser accessory that should have died when OS 7.x came out. I would switch back to a Mac except I can get old PCs on the cheap and throw Debian GNU/Linux on them. (Yes, I am cheap at times.)
Actually with the Windows NT line this should not be that big of a problem if people check e-mail from an unprivlaged account instead of as an admin. Windows users should take most of the blame since this .exe doesn't seem to execute itself.
If everyone used Linux then there would be no other OS to write viruses for. :p
There is some truth to that as people would have exploited SendMail until people became smart enough to use something else, but Linux Distros give you a choice of what software you have installed. I can't remove Internet Explorer from my Windows box. I would like to just in case there is an unknown exploit that will be exploited in the future, but I can't. I am stuck running Mozilla and using ZoneAlarm to firewall IE in.
This still does not solve the stupid user problem. A stupid user is a potential security risk on any platform, limited only by what the admin allows. And when that stupid user is his/her own admin . . . *shutter*
People seem to be either on the side of Windows or on the side of Linux. Both have flaws.
And why do I never hear "If everyone ran *BSD instead of Windows, then the virus writers would write viruses for *BSD instead"?
Windows gets those flaws exploited more often with less solutions to the problem. Linux packages with flaws can be removed and replaced by a different package, (like replacing SendMail with exim,) or patched. Microsoft gets all the blame because it is almost always Microsoft software that is exploited. On Linux Boxes however, packeges that get exploted get a bad reputation (like SendMail).
Linux Distros usually fall short in being idiot-user friendly. By the time I figured out how to change my monitor resolution, I knew more about FreeX86 and the XF86Config file than I had wanted to know.
Yes, I know. It should be GNU/Linux Distros. Sorry.
Praise time.
Naffer is right, Windows should not be blamed for this problem.
Most of us are aware that the Internet isn't really free. We the web browsers usually pay an ISP or put up with an ISP's adds to pay for the "free" Internet access. The same is for those who provide Internet content. It costs something to be connected and costs something to keep it running (and that cost is not always money.)
Then there is the perversion of the Internet(motly the World Wide Web). The Internet was created to share information in a platform independent way, not to pop up endless adds, not to display animated adds jumping around, not to run code like JavaScript, and Visual Basic, and expecially not to run ActiveX controlls.
Yes, a lot of what has been done is really cool and things on the Internet should change and grow, but the changes really should be for the better. If your website only works right on an IE browser but not on ANY other, there is something wrong. If a binary or script can be automatically run, something is wrong. Any time you add something to the Internet that only takes something away from the people, it is a perversion!
So what does this have to do with Internet adds? This is another change to the Internet that does not improve anything. In fact it makes things worse. It will at least cost some people browsing the Internet money, and annoy us all.
So what do we do? (1) E-mail the companies using this service and tell them you will stop using the service if they continue run such commercials. (2) Stop using the services. (3) If only one company is going to be spitting out the adds, time to do a little local DNS editing or block traffic from those spicific Internet domains. (4) It sounds like it is a new type of file since it loads compleatly before playing. Switch to a web browser that does not support it.
Okay, so how does this format load and play when I browse the web using the text-based LYNX browser? How much is a guarantee worth when it is impossible to deliver?
So exactly why is it good business sence to piss off your customers with adds? I get pissed off going to a Movie theater and see TV commercials and go to other theaters.
Not all websites are free of charge. Ever been to a website that requires you to login? Some of those charge a fee for an account. Those services are usually worth it (or they would have gone under).
"The Internet is my tool; I refuse to be the tool of the Internet." -- MrNybbles
How to make Adds NOT piss people off
Many DVDs put adds/previews/whatever in a bonus section of the DVD. MAKE ADDS OPTIONAL!
In magazines I can skip the add pages. In addition, some of those adds are actually more interesting than the magazine content itself. MAKE IT UNINTRUSIVE! MAKE IT INTERESTING!
NAA! (Not Another Acronym!)
I think you are missing the point. These people are not worried about someone walking in and taking hardware, they are worried about someone sneaking into the system and using it as a zombie or steal information without anyone knowing about it.
You also missed the obvous, this bug can, in theory, be exploited remotly given the right kind of access.
It doesn't really matter how long the bug/exploit existed. What matters is how big of a problem the exploit is and how fast it is fixed. Microsoft tends to take forever to fix it's bugs and it doesn't always do that right. Some patches would undo other patches and one of my friends ran Windows Update and it broke his ability to connect to the Internet.
Why the hell are you comparing a Kernel to a collection of Operating Systems and Operating Environments (Windows 3.X 9X are not actually sperating systems) ?!? Most of the exploits of a Linux Distro are from the third party packages. I don't ever remember seeing anyone faulting Microsoft for a security hole in Windows caused by some third-party software. That Caldara exploit was most likely in a distro package, not Linux. Please get your terminology down before you pretend to know something.To take advantage of the mremap() syscall bug a person would either need to be able to run an executable on the Linux Box or be able to get some poorly written program to do it. And what business do most programs have calling mremap() anyway? This is not an easy bug to exploit. I would say that this exploit is not that big of a problem for most people and was fixed quickly. For people running a system where the admin was stupid enough to give untrustworthy people a login accout or somehow the ability to run executables, well, they should have been expecting something bad to happen.
Yah, and guess where your head is stuck? I'll give you a hint, it's not the sand. :p
"Windows is better because. . .. Linux is better because. . . Mac is better because. . . Whoever sets the terms of the argument always wins (unless that person has no idea how to argue correctly)" -- MrNybbles
This reminds me of GeoCities where people with a GeoCities homepage (as they call it) were not allowed to put in HTML, JavaScript, or anything else that blocked or altered the adds. I have never heard of an EULA that had anything to do with agreeing to not block popup adds or add images.
Even if an EULA forbid people browsing the web from blocking the popup adds that would be very stupid because there is no way to inforce such an agreement and stop people from using Squid Guard and such software. Besides, HTML is an interpreted language. It's up to the web browser to figure out how it should look in the end.
Maybe someone could make an EULA that forbids blocking any images on the web page, altering the text size, defult font, colors, and forbids the use of text-only browsers such as lynx. If anyone does let me know so we can sterilize those people and their descendants so we can rid the gene pool of such people. :)
So an attacker who can gain access to your network -- over a wired connection or wirelessly -- can trick an affected system into trusting a rogue machine, and when the compromised machine reboots, take it over and even attack other systems on the network.
Okay, so the article is saying that by tricking a Mac into mounting my drive and having that Mac reboot I can magically take it over????
This article seems to be just an excuse to bash Macs. Very little is talking about the actual security problem.
Anyway I find it hard to believe that those Macs have the remote volume mounting features on by default since most Mac users probably would not use such a feature.
Too bad the author did not pull his head out of his you-know-where to tell us anything useful like how dificult it is to pull off such an attack. If it is only a problem on a local network then the atricle blows things way out of proportion. If you could pull this off over the Internet then a Dial-up user would get a new IP address and would need to be tracked down again.
Ultimately, those on the Mac fringe have to face facts: Panther and Jaguar were not better at outrunning vulnerabilities than Windows.
You don't "outrun" vulnerabilities, you avoid creating them. So just because someone found one (probably) weak-ass vulnerability in Macs, Windows is magically on par with Macs as far as security goes.
I would be more convinced if I saw a side-by-side list of all known Mac & Window vulnerabilities. The author of the article needs to be drug into a dark ally and have some sense beaten into him.
Too bad you couldn't wait any longer. I am still waiting for Windows to come out of beta. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
You are lucky though, my first Windows OS is Windows 98 (First Lousy Edition.) I got so pissed off with Windows I eventually switched to Linux. It's not anywhere near a perfect OS, but it gets the job done without pissing me off.
Oh great, I just pissed off the Windows zealots by saying Windows in unstable and pissed off the Linux zealots by saying Linux isn't perfect and not calling it GNU/Linux. And what about the OS/2 zealots? I didn't even mention OS/2! I am so screwed, and not in the fun way!
I will sleep much better knowing that I will have power (NRC), People permoting Science (NSF), and Social Security which I will pay into all my life and not get my money's worth (SSA).
., and what? The EPA looses track of who polluted what maybe?
Who needs the Department of Agriculture anyway? It's not like crops will stop growing if the compuers are hacked, right?
As for the DOD getting a D, well it already has two D's so how much could a third D hurt?
The EPA got a C. So what if they are hacked. It's not like all of a sudden I can't see the mountains in California, I can't see them now anyway. What's the worst that could happen? Someone hacks the EPA, screws up the computers and. .
**cough never underestimate the human potential to create chaos cough**
Oh, you don't have any faith in New AOL 9.0 Optimized?
I hope by "Optimized" they mean they are now using a normal TCP/IP protocol instead of the custom AOL protocol stuff that seems to have no real reason to exist even if it made sence in the beginning.
The law just doesn't work that way. Prisons cost money and in the US we just don't have enough room in the current prisons to keep people for the entire length the sentence. So in these cases they did not pay "theirt debt to society in jail[sic]."
Arizona actually does some prisons the right way. Prisoners live in tents in fenced in areas in the middle of the hot desert and the food given to them costs less than the food given to the guard dogs.
As for "crewl[sic] and ususual punishment", how is a public notice that someone is a bad person cruel? The person is not harmed and other people have the right to discriminate against such a person.
How is it unusual? It is sometimes announced when a person has been accused of a crime so why not announce when they are let back on the streets?
If the people really are still a danger to the public then executing those people would probably be the best thing to do. This would cut down on the cost of building new prisons and we could get rid of the endless appeals but no, criminals have rights too.
And for many people in jail the crime they are most guilty of is not being able to afford a good lawyer(lier?). In an imperfect world sometimes an imperfect solution is the best way to go. Compromise.
I had problems with two different major versions of RedHat GNU/Linux Distros. I actually managed to lock up the X Window Server just by clicking on an archive file and the archive program would lock everything up almost every time.
:)
I then switched to Debian (unstable) and everything runs stable.
Yes, the production(right/wrong term?) RedHat I ordered online is unstable and the free unstable Debian is rock solid. Life is full of contradictions. Live with it.
At any rate the point is if you are using a distro of GNU/Linux that has problems, switch to another distro (or OS). For me RedHat was nearly as bad as my Windows 98 so I tossed it. If you actually are happy using Windows then good for you. No need to replace it. (No real need to pay money to upgrade either.)
Why do Microsoft and RedHat sacrifice stability for ease of use and flashyness? **coughMONEYcough**
I don't know, but I don't use products releaced by either company because the continue to releace garbage as a product (but your results may vary.) I have no brand loyality, but I do remember when I have been pissed off.
Why not do what my friend Mike does when he has a problem with a bad cable and just jiggle it a little? It works great for his monitor cable so why not for a giant bundle of fiberoptics/wires/whatever in the ocean? What could possably go wrong? Jiggling the cable has got to be cheaper than going down to BestBuy and buying a new cable and running it from the US to the UK. Don't get the extended warrenty though, it's not worth it!
There are two main types of Win32 executables: the GUI type and the Console type. (I'll ignore the POSIX and other subsystems for now.) Sure the Console Win32 programs are almost identical to the old DOS programs, but the comment you are quoting is refering to the GUI windows programs which often ignore the command line.
.bmp file in Photoshop and convert it to a .jpeg file. I need to run the program, open the file, then save the file, then exit the program. With a command line everything is one step (if you can figure out what on earth to type.)
A Windows command line will not allow me to do stuff like open up a
Actually SCO might be doing the world a favor. Without Linux do to the special effects and stuff people might actually be forced to make movies that entertain people using plot and a decent story.
Don't get me wrong, I liked Toxic Advenger and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, but when was the last time a movie came out that people didn't bitch about?
In Tucson the I10 and I19 are under heavy construction so I wonder how long it will take for those guys to visit Tucson and get the maps updated. In the last two years several freeway exits have been removed from the freeway to never be reopened. Some roads now require drivers to get off at an earlier offramp and take a frontage road to the street you want.
.
I know that sites like mapsonus.com have a link to e-mail them about wrong/changed roads on the maps, but if it's really just up to two guys driving around then maybe it will take a wile.
Even worse, what if they actually take people at there word! "Oh yes, you can get off at the Willmot exit now and drive all the way to the Park Place mall ever sence they closed the military base. You can just drive across that area and nobody will mind."
If anyone is ever stupid enough to actually try that I hope they pick a mellow yellow alert level day to do it. They might go nuts if the national threat level is orange or red or something.
I have also noticed that some of these services will give me directions like "turn right onto unnamed road." The road really isn't unnamed, it just doesn't have a street sign. I guess asking the city for the info is too much work.
I am not suggesting that the people running Tucson or any other city actually know what they are doing. .
Anyway, none of these map services guarantee the results so before you follow the directions you should ask someone who actually knows that area (if you can find someone like that) expecially if there has been road construction. It might actually be faster taking the long way.