OK, who can write a perl CGI script that will, on connection from an infected host, send the appropriate commands to root.exe; download the tool; and run it?
That only works if the server is infected by the version that installs the trojan.
With a little more work one could take advantage of the fact that being infected by any version of the worm shows the server is vulnerable to the original buffer-overflow attack. So one could:
Get a copy of the worm.
Modify it to take the web server down (or whatever) rather than infecting it.
Install a launcher for it as default.ida in the document root of your webserver.
Note that by now any worm-infested machine - benign or backdoor version - may have several diverse rootkits installed. So it should be reinstalled (preferably with linux or a BSD and apache B-) ) rather than cleaned out and patched. And a machine infected with the benign worm, if merely crashed, will no doubt be brought back up and eventually infected with the backdoor-installing version.
Some authors of retaliatory-strike software will no doubt chose to disable the web server on a more permanent basis - as by removing the unpatched DLL (along with the several backdoors the worm installs - see a patch tool here) - rather than merely shutting it down.
While this may get them in trouble, chosing to reformat the drives would be a hostile action, since it might destroy unbacked parts of the web site. (It would also likely lead to the administrators installing a backup, complete with vulnerability. So it is a less effective retaliatory strike.)
Finally: I do NOT recommend actually doing this, as it may be illegal. The more damaging alternatives certainly are illegal (and also unnecessary, given the availability of less damaging alternatives).
Actually: authors of strncat() MAN PAGE and gets()
on
Code Red: the Aftermath
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Blame the bozo who designed strncat!
strncat() isn't a problem by itself. The problem is improper usage patterns.
When you're builiding a string by repeated strncat()s to a buffer, and you don't have guarantees about the size of the things you're concatinating, you need to prevent (or check for) overflow, something like this:
Without such an example in the man page it's easy to forget to guard against buffer overflow. And once code is writing with guards for overflow the guard code will serve as a reminder to later programmers maintaining or upgrading the code.
But strncat() isn't the main culprit.
Most of the buffer overflow attacks come from reading an input using gets(). That bad boy should have had a buffer size argument, ala fgets(). And it's the decision to keep it in the standard library "for compatability" that causes all the pain.
The gnu compiler will warn you if you use it and the man page has a warning, so there's no excuse for it to show up in new code any more. And there's no excuse for not fixing ALL the warnings in a piece of production code, or for using (or writing) a compiler that DOESN'T warn about gets().)
Funnier than you think.
on
Code Red III
·
· Score: 1, Offtopic
This is a UNIX email virus. It works on the honor system: If you're running a variant of unix , please forward this message to everyone you know and delete a bunch of your files at random. Thank you for your cooperation. by pjl@patsoffice.com
That's funnier than you think.
My wife posted a variant of that (involving "rm -rf/*" as root) to a large mailing list. A couple days later she got an email.
Seems the responder had just installed linux on his PC. The responder's spouse read the mail item and decided to try it. B-)
(Responder was quite amused by the effects. Fresh install, so nothing was lost.)
This seems to suggest either 1) antigravity etc or 2) paramagnetism
Or 3) electromagnetic induction.
Normally 3) would require some conductivity. But if the magnetic field change was strong enough and/or of short enough duration it could generate free charge carriers within something normally an insulator or produce adequate eddy current to cause a detectable motion by moving bound charges without ionizing their atoms.
Let's not forget that these results are highly disputed among physicists. Just because someone reports they're seeing something doesn't mean that is, what in fact, they are seeing.
Hear hear.
The experimental setup involves an enormous fixed magnetic field and enormous pulsed electric and magnetic fields. Shielding against the resulting electro/magnetic/weak-force pulses and all the pathological things they can do to the atoms in your test mass is a real bitch.
So of course they're going to be very careful about any claims and make very elaborate descriptions of the test set up so other people can try to reproduce the effect and determine if it's real.
But a way to modulate gravity - with or without an electro-gravatic unification - would be a tremendous discovery! Cross your fingers.
Ditko was quite impressed by Objectivism, and wrote and drew two comic books with several stories to try to promote it.
Unfortunately, Ditko was NOT Any Rand and the techniques that worked well for Dr. Strange and Spider Man did NOT work well to get the messages of Objectivism across. It came out as ranting and transparent propaganda. An unintentional parody of Rand in comic book form.
The key to the jet: rotation is symmetric [a pure sine wave, sin(2t/3)]; the translational vibration is not [cos(t)-cos(2t)/2].
Nice. That should keep everything sliding continuously, or very close to it. Uses three frequencies (2, 3, 6).
Do you get multiple jets by doing linear addition of single jets at different frequencies or do you switch between single jets in sequence? If the former, is there a nice rule for the frequencies to prevent nasty effects (such as unplanned motion from static friction)?
(Please excuse my laziness if you had that in the paper.)
I consider Rand a flawed writer, but her understanding of the evils of government was solid. (Not suprising, as she came from the old Soviet Union, where the joke was that everything not prohibited was compulsory.)
As a friend of mine put it in the '60s:
Ayn Rand novels have the form of the "Russian Novel". Nobody is quite sure of the PURPOSE of a Russian Novel. But it's clear that is isn't entertainment.
The basic idea is that a rotational vibration centered on the point at which motion is desired is superimposed on a translational vibration in the desired direction of travel. When both vibration functions are suitably chosen, there's a very unexpected property: the feeding velocity is small everywhere except near the center of rotation.
This is counterintutive. You'd expect the rotational effects to be biggest far from the center of rotation, and zero at the center of rotation. Apparently the idea is that the forces induced by rotation interfere with the translational vibration that makes objects move. What puzzles me is that they're able to achieve zero feeding motion over most of the entire plane. But look at figure 6.2 in the thesis, showing the jet field.
Yes, objects far from the center of the jet still see a small force. But you can also apply a "jet" to each of them to cancel the small side-wash from the main jet. Or just wait until the side-wash displaces them from their desired locations enough to matter and then "blast" them momentarily with their own jets to put them back. B-)
That's really neat. But I don't get it intutively yet. Can anybody else explain it more clearly?
It's brilliant! (He really deserved that PhD.)
I think I get it:
The key is mentioned elsewhere in the paper: Once you've broken the static friction the force is constant (the sliding friction) in the direction of motion. So if the motion of the underlying platform lasts longer in one direction than the other, you have a net force in the direction that the motion lasts longer. (You move the plate faster in the other direction to compensate, so it ends up back where it started. The object sees a force vector which is the vector integration of a a vector that is pointed in the direction of the platform's motion but "clipped" to a constant length.)
That's the description of the linear part of the motion. But there's an additional rotational motion. The object at the center of rotation doesn't "see" it. But as you get farther from the center of rotation, this component becomes progressively larger. The motion of the table is the vector sum of the two motions. The force seen by an object is in the same direction, but "clipped" to a constant magnitude (vector length).
As you get farther from the center of rotation the rotational component of the table motion increases but the translational component remains constant. So the rotational component provides progressively more of the vector's direction. But the force is sliding friction so its magnitude is limited to a fixed value. So for the force vector the rotational component quickly becomes the bulk of the force vector, causing the translational component to decrease. The rotational component becomes dominant at a very short distance from the center.
But though the translational component is asymmetric, conveying a net force over one cycle, the rotational component is symmetric, conveying no net force. So you're presented with a net translational force that falls off quickly with the distance from the center of rotation.
CUTE!
All of this neglects another factor: At some points the table will, for some part of its cycle, match the motion of the object over that point. The object will "grab" the table and get an additional shove from the static friction as the table accellerates.
The demo seems to show a device that neglects this effect initially, then compensates for it by applying additional "jet" force on any object that is displaced from its desired trajectory, returning it to its desired location. The result is some "noise" in the motion of the individual objects and feedback correction of it.
It seems to me that this is something that can be turned to an advantage, increasing the effectiveness of the jets. If the object near the center of rotation is allowed to grip the table it can be accellerated more effectively than if it is kept sliding for the full cycle. Meanwhile, objects far from the center are kept in sliding-friction mode. The result is again a "jet", with the at-center object experiencing a shove and the off-center objects having the shove killed off by the rotation. But the shove might be stronger and the cancelation more complete.
Them's my links and my lame DoubleClick ads (which have netted me at least $180 over 18 months). I'll sue you bastards for every penny my shyster can get!
Hey...
Does it overwrite links in paid advertising?
If so I bet the advertising companies will be even more annoyed - and will be able to show financial damage if it ever comes to a lawsuit.
Apparently [Schumer's] check from Microsoft didn't come in this month.
It might have more to do with AOL and Eastman Kodak being New York corporations.
It was one thing when California corporations (i.e. Netscape) are having their apps squeezed out by Microsoft. But when it's New York corporations that's a whole different matter. B-)
... my main gripe with LCD panels is that they don't handle non-native resolutions gracefully. But if this is true CRT-like technology, we'll finally have the best of both worlds (great support for various resolutions, and the thin form factor!).
It's not clear to me that the CRT is actually variable resolution. The ilustration seemed to show a matrix of holes through one layer. If the beam is steered through those there may be a fixed resolution.
Unfortunately the image is so low-res that I can't make out what's actually going on, and the text isn't particularly helpful either. So we'll have to wait for another article with more info on what's actually going on in the guts.
Even if the resolution is fixed, the cost reduction, viewing angle improvement, potential color rendering improvements, and/or simplified electronics may make it viable.
Heard about a fellow who got so pained by people stealing his radios / CBs that he built a thermite charge into one, set to go off half a day or so after it was stolen.
One day it was stolen.
The next day the news had a story about a fire in an apartment building that apparently started in a closet that happened to be full of used consumer electronic equipment.
(The trouble with this approach, as you can see, is that many crooks live in multi-unit housing, so non-crook neighbors are likely to suffer serious economic hardship and maybe physical hardship or death, as "colateral damage" to the revenge on the crook.)
It's kind of sad how *stupid* our legislators are (yes, I vote btw, but when the choice is between dumb totally owned by corporate interest and dumber totally owned by corporate interest what kind of choice is it)?
So vote in the PRIMARIES.
And go to the local party functions of the party that revolts you less, find out which potential candidates are NOT "dumb totally owned by corporate interests", encourage them to run in the primary, and VOLUNTEER to ring bells, pass out literature, and otherwise get out the vote for your candidate.
Volunteer in the period leading up to the general election, too. Make the voter-contact calls and visite. You can just "forget to mention" any of the party's candidates you don't like. (That happened to at least one California anti-gun Republican last election - virtually all the volunteers were pro-gun. B-) )
Or run YOURSELF.
Geez. First you let the guys in the smoke-filled rooms and pressure groups decide who the candidates are and work to get them nominated, then you gripe that there's nobody there to represent YOUR interest.
Politics is WAR! If you believe in something, FIGHT for it!
Solder could be treated like bullets, limit how much common citizens can buy at any one time.
In the United States generally, bullets are not limited as to quantity that can be purchased at any one time. (Some cities may be trying this as a way to get around the Second Amendment. But "Arms" includes bullets...)
And when they DO mention it's Microsoft specific..
on
Unsafe At Any Runlevel
·
· Score: 5
... has anyone else noticed how most every MicroSoft-related security gaffe is reported in such a generic manner that it takes the heat (and spotlight) completely off of Redmond?
Yep.
And when they DO report that a particular virus or attack only hits Microsoft software they make it sound like that's because the bad guy was out to get Microsoft, completely missing that Microsoft is both the biggest and the most insecure target.
The primary reason people don't steal things randomly is because they don't want to get arrested. Yes, some people have morals, most of society -doesn't-.
(Maybe where YOU live... B-) )
Actually, most people are "good" or try to be. About one in 100 (between 1-in-50 and 1-in-200) are psychopaths (apparently a brain defect that corresponds to having no concience). They generally won't be "good" unless they learn a set of rules that tells them how and find a reason that it's in their best interest to follow the rules, at least to the extent of not hurting others. Many of them do, but some don't. Another small chunk learns to be "bad" despite not having the problem.
But these few "bad guys" can cause enormous havoc. So they have high visibility. So sometimes it seems like most of the people are "bad guys".
The idea behind these things is that they are very small (fits in a 1/2 height 5.25" drivebay, so either 1/2 or 1/3 U). The Raq is still 1U from the looks of it.
Yep. 1U, 12 1/2" deep. (Their first generation had an option for two complete systems in 1U but they seem to have abandoned that.)
No argument that there are advantages to using a disk form factor, especially for something that is intended for some form of clustering (per-customer servers, crunch farms, etc.) I've liked that stunt ever since the "big board" came out.
(In case you're not familiar with it, it was a CP/M motherboard the form factor of the circuit board on an 8" disk drive. Piggy-back it, mount the drive in a stock rack, plug in monitor, keyboard, and/or serial cable, and you had a complete machine-tool control system that fit in a disk-drive bay.)
With a starting price of $1649.00, why not get an imac which comes with a monitor, faster processor, and viseo card? I guess if you really need to rack mount these babies...
Want rack mount? We got a Cobalt Qube I and it was both lower power and lower price - three or four years ago. There's a rack-mountable version available. Ran linux, too.
It used a MIPS then. Just looked at their web site here. They've been acquired by Sun and are up to their fourth generation.
It's an Intel- compatable processor (at 300 or 450 MHz), still running Lunix. Power is up to a bit more than the briQ but that includes the power supply, which the briQ's ratings do not. Upgrades to SCSI, PCI jacks, and built-in RAID 1 available.
Low-end prices are $1,149 for the slower model (300 MHz) of Qube (450 available), $1,499 for the (450 MHz) rack mount. Note that this includes cabinet and power supply.
So it looks to me like the briQ's in the ballpark, but you're paying $150 extra AND losing the rack mount box and power supply to get a G-series machine and a serial port, and a "standard" rather than "custom" (and server-tuned) linux distribution (since Yellow Dog also sells the distribution bare).
I presume they're playing into approximately the same space, since they've named it briQ, which I take as a reference to the Qube. But the Cobalt machines are being pushed as (preconfigured) enterprise servers (email, web, web cache), while the briQ looks like a building block for both this and for clusters.
Maybe with two players in the same market segment we'll see some price competition in a bit.
BellSouth requires the domain you use in the from field to resolve to a valid domain, which seems to be a much better solution than just requiring you to use their domain.
That just means the spammers will have to masquerade as a VALID domain - and some poor sysop who DIDN'T have anything to do with the spam will catch hell.
Slashdot Mirror
That only works if the server is infected by the version that installs the trojan.
With a little more work one could take advantage of the fact that being infected by any version of the worm shows the server is vulnerable to the original buffer-overflow attack. So one could:
Get a copy of the worm.
Modify it to take the web server down (or whatever) rather than infecting it.
Install a launcher for it as default.ida in the document root of your webserver.
Note that by now any worm-infested machine - benign or backdoor version - may have several diverse rootkits installed. So it should be reinstalled (preferably with linux or a BSD and apache B-) ) rather than cleaned out and patched. And a machine infected with the benign worm, if merely crashed, will no doubt be brought back up and eventually infected with the backdoor-installing version.
Some authors of retaliatory-strike software will no doubt chose to disable the web server on a more permanent basis - as by removing the unpatched DLL (along with the several backdoors the worm installs - see a patch tool here) - rather than merely shutting it down.
While this may get them in trouble, chosing to reformat the drives would be a hostile action, since it might destroy unbacked parts of the web site. (It would also likely lead to the administrators installing a backup, complete with vulnerability. So it is a less effective retaliatory strike.)
Finally: I do NOT recommend actually doing this, as it may be illegal. The more damaging alternatives certainly are illegal (and also unnecessary, given the availability of less damaging alternatives).
Blame the bozo who designed strncat!
strncat() isn't a problem by itself. The problem is improper usage patterns.
When you're builiding a string by repeated strncat()s to a buffer, and you don't have guarantees about the size of the things you're concatinating, you need to prevent (or check for) overflow, something like this:
strncat(dest, src, MIN((BUFFSIZE-1)-sizeof(dest), chars_wanted_from_src));
Without such an example in the man page it's easy to forget to guard against buffer overflow. And once code is writing with guards for overflow the guard code will serve as a reminder to later programmers maintaining or upgrading the code.
But strncat() isn't the main culprit.
Most of the buffer overflow attacks come from reading an input using gets(). That bad boy should have had a buffer size argument, ala fgets(). And it's the decision to keep it in the standard library "for compatability" that causes all the pain.
The gnu compiler will warn you if you use it and the man page has a warning, so there's no excuse for it to show up in new code any more. And there's no excuse for not fixing ALL the warnings in a piece of production code, or for using (or writing) a compiler that DOESN'T warn about gets().)
This is a UNIX email virus. It works on the honor system: If you're running a variant of unix , please forward this message to everyone you know and delete a bunch of your files at random. Thank you for your cooperation. by pjl@patsoffice.com
/*" as root) to a large mailing list. A couple days later she got an email.
That's funnier than you think.
My wife posted a variant of that (involving "rm -rf
Seems the responder had just installed linux on his PC. The responder's spouse read the mail item and decided to try it. B-)
(Responder was quite amused by the effects. Fresh install, so nothing was lost.)
This seems to suggest either 1) antigravity etc or 2) paramagnetism
Or 3) electromagnetic induction.
Normally 3) would require some conductivity. But if the magnetic field change was strong enough and/or of short enough duration it could generate free charge carriers within something normally an insulator or produce adequate eddy current to cause a detectable motion by moving bound charges without ionizing their atoms.
Let's not forget that these results are highly disputed among physicists. Just because someone reports they're seeing something doesn't mean that is, what in fact, they are seeing.
Hear hear.
The experimental setup involves an enormous fixed magnetic field and enormous pulsed electric and magnetic fields. Shielding against the resulting electro/magnetic/weak-force pulses and all the pathological things they can do to the atoms in your test mass is a real bitch.
So of course they're going to be very careful about any claims and make very elaborate descriptions of the test set up so other people can try to reproduce the effect and determine if it's real.
But a way to modulate gravity - with or without an electro-gravatic unification - would be a tremendous discovery! Cross your fingers.
... [the letter] said that AC3 had been registered with the patent and trademark office, but didn't list a patent number.
Maybe that's because AC3 is a registered TRADEMARK.
B-)
I was speaking of *un*intentional parodies.
Actually these ARE unintentional parodies.
Ditko was quite impressed by Objectivism, and wrote and drew two comic books with several stories to try to promote it.
Unfortunately, Ditko was NOT Any Rand and the techniques that worked well for Dr. Strange and Spider Man did NOT work well to get the messages of Objectivism across. It came out as ranting and transparent propaganda. An unintentional parody of Rand in comic book form.
Steve Ditko's "Mr A" or "The Avenging World".
B-)
The key to the jet: rotation is symmetric [a pure sine wave, sin(2t/3)]; the translational vibration is not [cos(t)-cos(2t)/2].
Nice. That should keep everything sliding continuously, or very close to it. Uses three frequencies (2, 3, 6).
Do you get multiple jets by doing linear addition of single jets at different frequencies or do you switch between single jets in sequence? If the former, is there a nice rule for the frequencies to prevent nasty effects (such as unplanned motion from static friction)?
(Please excuse my laziness if you had that in the paper.)
The applied force is clipped by the limits of static friction.
Sliding, not static. Otherwise, yes.
As a friend of mine put it in the '60s:
B-)
The basic idea is that a rotational vibration centered on the point at which motion is desired is superimposed on a translational vibration in the desired direction of travel. When both vibration functions are suitably chosen, there's a very unexpected property: the feeding velocity is small everywhere except near the center of rotation.
This is counterintutive. You'd expect the rotational effects to be biggest far from the center of rotation, and zero at the center of rotation. Apparently the idea is that the forces induced by rotation interfere with the translational vibration that makes objects move. What puzzles me is that they're able to achieve zero feeding motion over most of the entire plane. But look at figure 6.2 in the thesis, showing the jet field.
Yes, objects far from the center of the jet still see a small force. But you can also apply a "jet" to each of them to cancel the small side-wash from the main jet. Or just wait until the side-wash displaces them from their desired locations enough to matter and then "blast" them momentarily with their own jets to put them back. B-)
That's really neat. But I don't get it intutively yet. Can anybody else explain it more clearly?
It's brilliant! (He really deserved that PhD.)
I think I get it:
The key is mentioned elsewhere in the paper: Once you've broken the static friction the force is constant (the sliding friction) in the direction of motion. So if the motion of the underlying platform lasts longer in one direction than the other, you have a net force in the direction that the motion lasts longer. (You move the plate faster in the other direction to compensate, so it ends up back where it started. The object sees a force vector which is the vector integration of a a vector that is pointed in the direction of the platform's motion but "clipped" to a constant length.)
That's the description of the linear part of the motion. But there's an additional rotational motion. The object at the center of rotation doesn't "see" it. But as you get farther from the center of rotation, this component becomes progressively larger. The motion of the table is the vector sum of the two motions. The force seen by an object is in the same direction, but "clipped" to a constant magnitude (vector length).
As you get farther from the center of rotation the rotational component of the table motion increases but the translational component remains constant. So the rotational component provides progressively more of the vector's direction. But the force is sliding friction so its magnitude is limited to a fixed value. So for the force vector the rotational component quickly becomes the bulk of the force vector, causing the translational component to decrease. The rotational component becomes dominant at a very short distance from the center.
But though the translational component is asymmetric, conveying a net force over one cycle, the rotational component is symmetric, conveying no net force. So you're presented with a net translational force that falls off quickly with the distance from the center of rotation.
CUTE!
All of this neglects another factor: At some points the table will, for some part of its cycle, match the motion of the object over that point. The object will "grab" the table and get an additional shove from the static friction as the table accellerates.
The demo seems to show a device that neglects this effect initially, then compensates for it by applying additional "jet" force on any object that is displaced from its desired trajectory, returning it to its desired location. The result is some "noise" in the motion of the individual objects and feedback correction of it.
It seems to me that this is something that can be turned to an advantage, increasing the effectiveness of the jets. If the object near the center of rotation is allowed to grip the table it can be accellerated more effectively than if it is kept sliding for the full cycle. Meanwhile, objects far from the center are kept in sliding-friction mode. The result is again a "jet", with the at-center object experiencing a shove and the off-center objects having the shove killed off by the rotation. But the shove might be stronger and the cancelation more complete.
A trojan is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.
TopText is program code embedded inside another program that does undesirable things to your computer.
Therefore TopText is a trojan.
A trojan is something that makes surreptitious use of your computer without your permission.
Seems to me that's been a federal felony since just before the Internet Worm.
Them's my links and my lame DoubleClick ads (which have netted me at least $180 over 18 months). I'll sue you bastards for every penny my shyster can get!
Hey...
Does it overwrite links in paid advertising?
If so I bet the advertising companies will be even more annoyed - and will be able to show financial damage if it ever comes to a lawsuit.
I wonder if we can get THEM to sue 'em?
Apparently [Schumer's] check from Microsoft didn't come in this month.
It might have more to do with AOL and Eastman Kodak being New York corporations.
It was one thing when California corporations (i.e. Netscape) are having their apps squeezed out by Microsoft. But when it's New York corporations that's a whole different matter. B-)
... my main gripe with LCD panels is that they don't handle non-native resolutions gracefully. But if this is true CRT-like technology, we'll finally have the best of both worlds (great support for various resolutions, and the thin form factor!).
It's not clear to me that the CRT is actually variable resolution. The ilustration seemed to show a matrix of holes through one layer. If the beam is steered through those there may be a fixed resolution.
Unfortunately the image is so low-res that I can't make out what's actually going on, and the text isn't particularly helpful either. So we'll have to wait for another article with more info on what's actually going on in the guts.
Even if the resolution is fixed, the cost reduction, viewing angle improvement, potential color rendering improvements, and/or simplified electronics may make it viable.
Heard about a fellow who got so pained by people stealing his radios / CBs that he built a thermite charge into one, set to go off half a day or so after it was stolen.
One day it was stolen.
The next day the news had a story about a fire in an apartment building that apparently started in a closet that happened to be full of used consumer electronic equipment.
(The trouble with this approach, as you can see, is that many crooks live in multi-unit housing, so non-crook neighbors are likely to suffer serious economic hardship and maybe physical hardship or death, as "colateral damage" to the revenge on the crook.)
It's kind of sad how *stupid* our legislators are (yes, I vote btw, but when the choice is between dumb totally owned by corporate interest and dumber totally owned by corporate interest what kind of choice is it)?
So vote in the PRIMARIES.
And go to the local party functions of the party that revolts you less, find out which potential candidates are NOT "dumb totally owned by corporate interests", encourage them to run in the primary, and VOLUNTEER to ring bells, pass out literature, and otherwise get out the vote for your candidate.
Volunteer in the period leading up to the general election, too. Make the voter-contact calls and visite. You can just "forget to mention" any of the party's candidates you don't like. (That happened to at least one California anti-gun Republican last election - virtually all the volunteers were pro-gun. B-) )
Or run YOURSELF.
Geez. First you let the guys in the smoke-filled rooms and pressure groups decide who the candidates are and work to get them nominated, then you gripe that there's nobody there to represent YOUR interest.
Politics is WAR! If you believe in something, FIGHT for it!
Solder could be treated like bullets, limit how much common citizens can buy at any one time.
In the United States generally, bullets are not limited as to quantity that can be purchased at any one time. (Some cities may be trying this as a way to get around the Second Amendment. But "Arms" includes bullets...)
... has anyone else noticed how most every MicroSoft-related security gaffe is reported in such a generic manner that it takes the heat (and spotlight) completely off of Redmond?
Yep.
And when they DO report that a particular virus or attack only hits Microsoft software they make it sound like that's because the bad guy was out to get Microsoft, completely missing that Microsoft is both the biggest and the most insecure target.
The primary reason people don't steal things randomly is because they don't want to get arrested. Yes, some people have morals, most of society -doesn't-.
(Maybe where YOU live... B-) )
Actually, most people are "good" or try to be. About one in 100 (between 1-in-50 and 1-in-200) are psychopaths (apparently a brain defect that corresponds to having no concience). They generally won't be "good" unless they learn a set of rules that tells them how and find a reason that it's in their best interest to follow the rules, at least to the extent of not hurting others. Many of them do, but some don't. Another small chunk learns to be "bad" despite not having the problem.
But these few "bad guys" can cause enormous havoc. So they have high visibility. So sometimes it seems like most of the people are "bad guys".
The idea behind these things is that they are very small (fits in a 1/2 height 5.25" drivebay, so either 1/2 or 1/3 U). The Raq is still 1U from the looks of it.
Yep. 1U, 12 1/2" deep. (Their first generation had an option for two complete systems in 1U but they seem to have abandoned that.)
No argument that there are advantages to using a disk form factor, especially for something that is intended for some form of clustering (per-customer servers, crunch farms, etc.) I've liked that stunt ever since the "big board" came out.
(In case you're not familiar with it, it was a CP/M motherboard the form factor of the circuit board on an 8" disk drive. Piggy-back it, mount the drive in a stock rack, plug in monitor, keyboard, and/or serial cable, and you had a complete machine-tool control system that fit in a disk-drive bay.)
With a starting price of $1649.00, why not get an imac which comes with a monitor, faster processor, and viseo card? I guess if you really need to rack mount these babies...
Want rack mount? We got a Cobalt Qube I and it was both lower power and lower price - three or four years ago. There's a rack-mountable version available. Ran linux, too.
It used a MIPS then. Just looked at their web site here. They've been acquired by Sun and are up to their fourth generation.
It's an Intel- compatable processor (at 300 or 450 MHz), still running Lunix. Power is up to a bit more than the briQ but that includes the power supply, which the briQ's ratings do not. Upgrades to SCSI, PCI jacks, and built-in RAID 1 available.
Low-end prices are $1,149 for the slower model (300 MHz) of Qube (450 available), $1,499 for the (450 MHz) rack mount. Note that this includes cabinet and power supply.
So it looks to me like the briQ's in the ballpark, but you're paying $150 extra AND losing the rack mount box and power supply to get a G-series machine and a serial port, and a "standard" rather than "custom" (and server-tuned) linux distribution (since Yellow Dog also sells the distribution bare).
I presume they're playing into approximately the same space, since they've named it briQ, which I take as a reference to the Qube. But the Cobalt machines are being pushed as (preconfigured) enterprise servers (email, web, web cache), while the briQ looks like a building block for both this and for clusters.
Maybe with two players in the same market segment we'll see some price competition in a bit.
BellSouth requires the domain you use in the from field to resolve to a valid domain, which seems to be a much better solution than just requiring you to use their domain.
That just means the spammers will have to masquerade as a VALID domain - and some poor sysop who DIDN'T have anything to do with the spam will catch hell.
The first is to burn soldiers in their camp;
the second is to burn stores;
the third is to burn baggage trains;
the fourth is to burn arsenals and magazines;
the fifth is to hurl dropping fire amongst the enemy.
Have fun at the rally, kids!
If that isn't "flamebait" I don't know what could be a worse pun.