But spoofing a mac is at least as hard as wep cracking
I don't know whether this will work for a wireless interface, but for the wired ethernet interfaces I've come across (NE2000, 3Com, Via, RealTek), a simple
The Groklaw article states that "Linux (which is used to run the SCO website) has built-in protection against these sorts of attacks". While this is true, it is worth noting that the SYN-cookies functionality (used in Linux to protect against SYN flood DDOSs) must
be enabled in the kernel, and
then turned on using something like "echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_syncookies"
So it's not quite as trivial as Groklaw makes out; but still trivial enough that SCO, if their webserver is a Linux box, are complete idiots not to have enabled it.
I'm sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. At no point did the UN security council give authorization for the use of force against Iraq. Have you actually read the text of resolution 1441, and of those that went before it; or have you instead been obediently suckling at the 'fair and balanced' teat of the neo-con media sow? UN resolutions are very specific when the authorize force; the words 'by all means necessary' are often used. There is no such phrase, or one equivalent to it, anywhere in 1441 or prior resolutions.
And if you think that the strong wording in 1441 was sufficient to authorize invasion, then tell me this: why Israel hasn't been invaded, based on the plethora of resolutions since 1967?
And if you think there was a moral case for invading Iraq, tell me this: why is Bush providing support, both diplomatic and military, for a dictator who likes to boil to death those who oppose him?
UN == US, I fail to see what difference this makes.
I find that a rather far-fetched claim, in light of the USA's abject failure to win any form of UN approval or backing for their illegal invasion of Iraq.
Speaking of MythTV - does anyone know if there are processes in MythTV that could benefit from OpenMosix?
Definitely! The transcode processes would be perfect candidates for moving to another machine; they are usually quite computationally-expensive, since one is usually trying futher to compress an already-compressed stream. In my MythTV set up at home, I use a Hauppage PVR-250 to capture video in MPEG-2 format. Since the hardware does this initial encoding, the CPU is pretty much untaxed by the capture.
However, when it comes to transcoding the MPEG-2 files into MPEG-4 (to achieve double space savings), the transcode processes chew up quite a bit of CPU time. If this job could be moved to other machines, that would be very good, since it would leave spare CPU cycles on the master for playback.
Now you have a really popular tricksy and you have 50,000 spamholes on the internet. This will delivery 50,000 X 2 free test emails. Why not just use that free 100,000 emails to deliver spam instead.
Because to send each of those two 'free' emails from each of the 50,000 spam holes, you have to bring up 50,000 separate SMTP connections and send the email text 50,000 times, thus completely maxing out your connection. This is not the way spammers want to work.
Instead, they find high bandwidth open relays, and send a few spams with huge To: lists. It is the open relay which then multiplexes the spams to the multitude of recipients, not the spammer.
To summarize, the 2 (or however many, as long as it remains a small number) 'free' emails permitted by spam hole will be of very little use to spammers, since to reach millions of recipients, they will have to connect to thousands of spam holes, which is too slow to be economical. Spam hole will not create a new spam problem in itself. Whether it will cure the present spam problem is another matter.
Yes, Linux servers are not perfect. Accept this, patch, fix, and move on. Microsoft did, and they haven't had a break-in since October of 2000. According to a recent article, they're attacked 2500 to 3000 times daily.
Ah, but 99% of those 'attacks' were actually ICMP echo requests. Microsoft counts these probes as attacks because their operating systems have a history of crashing when pinged.
in general, they are. however, there's only so much that library optimizations can do for you when you're competing against a significantly faster processor in a cpu-intensive task
I'm sorry, I wasn't completely specific here. What I found was that the LAPACK routines in Sun's performance libraries produced execution times twice as long as LAPACK routines compiled from source and linked againsts the ATLAS BLAS. This comparison has nothing to do with the Athlon XP machine -- it is a like-for-like comparison of two runs of the same program running on the V480, the only difference being the LAPACK library used. The fact that Sun's library performed so poorly is bad, no matter how one argues it.
sun's hardware isn't marketed for its computational power. people buy sun hardware for its reliability and for the ability to run solaris/sunos on its native platform. if you want something that will crunch numbers as fast as an athlon xp, you're using the wrong tool.
Ah, how silly of me. I was under the impression that Sun manufactured hardware for High-Performance Computing; that their software QC was of a level sufficient to compile run-of-the-mill Fortran 95 without crashing; and that their performance libraries would be more efficient than freely-available open-source solutions. Thank you for disabusing me of all of these notions.
Not unless they stop producing crapware. I've spent the whole day trying to work around boneheaded compiler bugs which stop me running my codes on my department's V480. Only to find that, when my codes did eventually work correctly, they only ran half as fast as on my $600 desktop Athlon XP.
I think we should also recognize that the same things have happened (in various forms) in a number of industries including, but not limited to: farming, mining, steel production, automotives, manufacturing of all stripes, textiles, etc. ad nauseum.
Interesting you should mention textiles -- the British, when they controlled India, deliberately destroyed the large and successful Indian textile industry, since it was in competition with their own industry. Truly, an example of 'what goes around, comes around'!
The article wasn't based on silicon or anyother substance, but fundimental physics.
From my understanding of the article, the limit toted by Intel is based on leakage due to quantum tunnelling over distances of 5 nanometers or less. Now, IAAP (I am a physicist), and I know that tunneling probabilities have an exponential dependence on both distance and the height of the potential barrier which is being penetrated through. This barrier height depends on the particular materials used to manufacture pn semiconductor junctions; therefore, the OP was correct in pointing out that using different materials can get around the problems which silicon will soon meet.
... more information regarding the Vegan Orbital Fort discovered in the dusty disk, including a panel discussion on whether it is heading our way, and what we're going to do if it is.
The Catholic Church only recognized that the Earth revolves around the sun since 1993? Now I'll admit I don't know which date they officially recognized it, but I think it was much before 1963, let alone 93. I think your statements are more telling than the original poster.
Do a Google search on "Galileo Pope John Paul", and you will find many links discussing the official admission, in 1992, that Galileo had been wrongly treated, and that his ideas were correct.
Origin theory encompasses all theories regarding the origin of the universe and life on earth... evolutionary and creationist and all other whacko theories out there....
The theory of evolution says nothing regarding the origin of life on earth; all it states is that organisms change over time, through the mechanism of natural selection. In your manifest ignorance, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis. The former is a well-established theory, the latter still the subject of much debate.
Let's not forget, however, that plutonium and its decay products are extremely toxic, irrespective of the radioactive side of things. Even if plutonium were stable, it wouldn't be a safe substance....
It hasn't yet been formally accepted (as a Physical Law*) by the scientific community, yet the author considers the notion of the Big Bang never happening to be nonsense?
I think you will be very hard pushed to find experts (i.e. cosmologists) who refute the Big Bang theory; indeed, to claim that it hasn't been formally accepted is pretty disingenuous.
Furthermore, the parallels you draw with Galileo's circumstances are flawed. Galileo backed up his heliocentric theory with an appeal to empirical data (such as observations of the satellites of Jupiter). In contrast, those who said "As any fool can see, the sun goes around the Earth..." made no effort to offer a similar level of corroborating evidence, relying instead on religious dogma.
Looking now at the Big Bang theory, which camp does it fall into? Is it backed up by empirical data, or is it merely dogma? Well, a Google search for Cosmic Microwave Background, COBE and/or BOOMERANG provides quite a few links indicating that the former scenario is closer to the truth.
I usually find that those claiming the Big Bang to be a transient fad are often of the same ilk as those who called Galileo crazy: adherents to dogma, who are unable to accept empirical evidence when it backs theories which contradict their religious beliefs. While you have made no mention of religion, I find your (unsubstantiaed) criticism of the theory of Evolution to be rather telling.
The fact of the matter is, the scientific community has been wrong more often than right.
Ah, but the wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting. When a theory doesn't properly describe the world around us, it is discarded or modified accordingly. Contrast this with, e.g., the Catholic Church: only in the past decade have they agreed that Galileo's heliocentric theory is correct, and that their dogma of an Earth-centred universe has been incorrect (and in disagreement with observations) for around four centuries.
Slashdot Mirror
A haiku contains
Seasonal reference (spring)
Or it's not haiku
Not in Soviet
Russia, where haiku owns you,
Insensitive clod!
But spoofing a mac is at least as hard as wep cracking
I don't know whether this will work for a wireless interface, but for the wired ethernet interfaces I've come across (NE2000, 3Com, Via, RealTek), a simple
...is sufficient to spoof a MAC address.
The Groklaw article states that "Linux (which is used to run the SCO website) has built-in protection against these sorts of attacks". While this is true, it is worth noting that the SYN-cookies functionality (used in Linux to protect against SYN flood DDOSs) must
So it's not quite as trivial as Groklaw makes out; but still trivial enough that SCO, if their webserver is a Linux box, are complete idiots not to have enabled it.
I'm sorry, but you are the one who is wrong. At no point did the UN security council give authorization for the use of force against Iraq. Have you actually read the text of resolution 1441, and of those that went before it; or have you instead been obediently suckling at the 'fair and balanced' teat of the neo-con media sow? UN resolutions are very specific when the authorize force; the words 'by all means necessary' are often used. There is no such phrase, or one equivalent to it, anywhere in 1441 or prior resolutions.
And if you think that the strong wording in 1441 was sufficient to authorize invasion, then tell me this: why Israel hasn't been invaded, based on the plethora of resolutions since 1967?
And if you think there was a moral case for invading Iraq, tell me this: why is Bush providing support, both diplomatic and military, for a dictator who likes to boil to death those who oppose him?
Michael Moore is a blowhard, the left wing equivalent of Rush Lumbago.
But at least Moore didn't use Limbaugh's excuse of anal cysts to dodge the Vietnam draft.
UN == US, I fail to see what difference this makes.
I find that a rather far-fetched claim, in light of the USA's abject failure to win any form of UN approval or backing for their illegal invasion of Iraq.
...wouldn't Wi-Chi be better?
Speaking of MythTV - does anyone know if there are processes in MythTV that could benefit from OpenMosix?
Definitely! The transcode processes would be perfect candidates for moving to another machine; they are usually quite computationally-expensive, since one is usually trying futher to compress an already-compressed stream. In my MythTV set up at home, I use a Hauppage PVR-250 to capture video in MPEG-2 format. Since the hardware does this initial encoding, the CPU is pretty much untaxed by the capture.
However, when it comes to transcoding the MPEG-2 files into MPEG-4 (to achieve double space savings), the transcode processes chew up quite a bit of CPU time. If this job could be moved to other machines, that would be very good, since it would leave spare CPU cycles on the master for playback.
Now you have a really popular tricksy and you have 50,000 spamholes on the internet. This will delivery 50,000 X 2 free test emails. Why not just use that free 100,000 emails to deliver spam instead.
Because to send each of those two 'free' emails from each of the 50,000 spam holes, you have to bring up 50,000 separate SMTP connections and send the email text 50,000 times, thus completely maxing out your connection. This is not the way spammers want to work.
Instead, they find high bandwidth open relays, and send a few spams with huge To: lists. It is the open relay which then multiplexes the spams to the multitude of recipients, not the spammer.
To summarize, the 2 (or however many, as long as it remains a small number) 'free' emails permitted by spam hole will be of very little use to spammers, since to reach millions of recipients, they will have to connect to thousands of spam holes, which is too slow to be economical. Spam hole will not create a new spam problem in itself. Whether it will cure the present spam problem is another matter.
Yes, Linux servers are not perfect. Accept this, patch, fix, and move on. Microsoft did, and they haven't had a break-in since October of 2000. According to a recent article, they're attacked 2500 to 3000 times daily.
Ah, but 99% of those 'attacks' were actually ICMP echo requests. Microsoft counts these probes as attacks because their operating systems have a history of crashing when pinged.
in general, they are. however, there's only so much that library optimizations can do for you when you're competing against a significantly faster processor in a cpu-intensive task
I'm sorry, I wasn't completely specific here. What I found was that the LAPACK routines in Sun's performance libraries produced execution times twice as long as LAPACK routines compiled from source and linked againsts the ATLAS BLAS. This comparison has nothing to do with the Athlon XP machine -- it is a like-for-like comparison of two runs of the same program running on the V480, the only difference being the LAPACK library used. The fact that Sun's library performed so poorly is bad, no matter how one argues it.
Thanks for the insight; I wasn't aware of the SNL limit. But is it specific to semiconductors, or does it also apply to optical/quantum computers?
Up until I switched to Firebird earlier this year, I hadn't gotten one virus or piece of spyware.
And have you got viruses or spyware since then? If not, why did you write a sentence which implies that you did?
sun's hardware isn't marketed for its computational power. people buy sun hardware for its reliability and for the ability to run solaris/sunos on its native platform. if you want something that will crunch numbers as fast as an athlon xp, you're using the wrong tool.
Ah, how silly of me. I was under the impression that Sun manufactured hardware for High-Performance Computing; that their software QC was of a level sufficient to compile run-of-the-mill Fortran 95 without crashing; and that their performance libraries would be more efficient than freely-available open-source solutions. Thank you for disabusing me of all of these notions.
They're gonna make a comeback!
Not unless they stop producing crapware. I've spent the whole day trying to work around boneheaded compiler bugs which stop me running my codes on my department's V480. Only to find that, when my codes did eventually work correctly, they only ran half as fast as on my $600 desktop Athlon XP.
I think we should also recognize that the same things have happened (in various forms) in a number of industries including, but not limited to: farming, mining, steel production, automotives, manufacturing of all stripes, textiles, etc. ad nauseum.
Interesting you should mention textiles -- the British, when they controlled India, deliberately destroyed the large and successful Indian textile industry, since it was in competition with their own industry. Truly, an example of 'what goes around, comes around'!
...thinking that d20 was referring to a 20-Denarii coin. D'oh
The article wasn't based on silicon or anyother substance, but fundimental physics.
From my understanding of the article, the limit toted by Intel is based on leakage due to quantum tunnelling over distances of 5 nanometers or less. Now, IAAP (I am a physicist), and I know that tunneling probabilities have an exponential dependence on both distance and the height of the potential barrier which is being penetrated through. This barrier height depends on the particular materials used to manufacture pn semiconductor junctions; therefore, the OP was correct in pointing out that using different materials can get around the problems which silicon will soon meet.
... more information regarding the Vegan Orbital Fort discovered in the dusty disk, including a panel discussion on whether it is heading our way, and what we're going to do if it is.
This does not affect OpenBSD. Smart admins can sleep well tonight.
Hell, who cares, OpenBSD is dying. In fact, in Soviet Russia it's already dead...
The Catholic Church only recognized that the Earth revolves around the sun since 1993? Now I'll admit I don't know which date they officially recognized it, but I think it was much before 1963, let alone 93. I think your statements are more telling than the original poster.
Do a Google search on "Galileo Pope John Paul", and you will find many links discussing the official admission, in 1992, that Galileo had been wrongly treated, and that his ideas were correct.
Origin theory encompasses all theories regarding the origin of the universe and life on earth... evolutionary and creationist and all other whacko theories out there....
The theory of evolution says nothing regarding the origin of life on earth; all it states is that organisms change over time, through the mechanism of natural selection. In your manifest ignorance, you have confused evolution with abiogenesis. The former is a well-established theory, the latter still the subject of much debate.
Let's not forget, however, that plutonium and its decay products are extremely toxic, irrespective of the radioactive side of things. Even if plutonium were stable, it wouldn't be a safe substance....
It hasn't yet been formally accepted (as a Physical Law*) by the scientific community, yet the author considers the notion of the Big Bang never happening to be nonsense?
I think you will be very hard pushed to find experts (i.e. cosmologists) who refute the Big Bang theory; indeed, to claim that it hasn't been formally accepted is pretty disingenuous.
Furthermore, the parallels you draw with Galileo's circumstances are flawed. Galileo backed up his heliocentric theory with an appeal to empirical data (such as observations of the satellites of Jupiter). In contrast, those who said "As any fool can see, the sun goes around the Earth..." made no effort to offer a similar level of corroborating evidence, relying instead on religious dogma.
Looking now at the Big Bang theory, which camp does it fall into? Is it backed up by empirical data, or is it merely dogma? Well, a Google search for Cosmic Microwave Background, COBE and/or BOOMERANG provides quite a few links indicating that the former scenario is closer to the truth.
I usually find that those claiming the Big Bang to be a transient fad are often of the same ilk as those who called Galileo crazy: adherents to dogma, who are unable to accept empirical evidence when it backs theories which contradict their religious beliefs. While you have made no mention of religion, I find your (unsubstantiaed) criticism of the theory of Evolution to be rather telling.
The fact of the matter is, the scientific community has been wrong more often than right.
Ah, but the wonderful thing about science is that it is self-correcting. When a theory doesn't properly describe the world around us, it is discarded or modified accordingly. Contrast this with, e.g., the Catholic Church: only in the past decade have they agreed that Galileo's heliocentric theory is correct, and that their dogma of an Earth-centred universe has been incorrect (and in disagreement with observations) for around four centuries.
It's not like one of the Galileo countries has threated to nuke the United States recently.
Galileo is a European project. China is not part of Europe. Study geography before posting.