which historically has been unsuccessfully attempted with atrocious measures like genocide.
Unsuccessful? Seen any Roma lately? No, because they're all dead. A successful genocide. (There may be a few left, but the traits of the average human genome have been altered by effectively wiping out a distinct ethnic group)
This isn't universally apparent now, but the "judenhas" genocide was also quite successful. By eliminating 60% of the Jewish population, and driving the rest into a clustered enclave where reproductive pressures will see them overwhelmed and dissipated within 50 years.
But that's beside the point...the discussion was about the notion that humans currently do not undergo natural selection, which is absurd. We most certainly do.
Here's another way of looking at the claim that "humans aren't evolving". On the North American continent, visit Montana or somewhere north of there, and look at a glacier. Is it moving? By any concievable practical definition, it is immobile and stationary. Yet it's velocity is the same as when it traveled 200 km down from the mountains a millenia ago.
In the same way, we can say that natural selection in humans (and all other major lifeforms) is stopped, since it's progress is far to slow for us to ever observe a change again.
Your definition of evolution is based on "heritable characteristics". DNA is not the only possible such characteristic. After all, it's just a way of transmitting information from one generation to the next, and we've developed other means to do this. Cuneiform is a good example. Gutenberg and ISO9660 are others.
The long term development of technological and political ideas are also forms of evolution. (Some call this "memetics") And since ideas can both mutate and propagate faster than genes, it's possible that the dominant form of future human evolution will be non-genetic.
but you mean weight would be a problem lifing off, not once in space...right?
No, weight is still a problem in space. (Unless you're trying to make a pedantic joke based on the irrelevant of any "weight" outside a gravity field)
If a vehicle is heavy on the earth, that means it's massive, and although weight "vanishes" in space, the mass remains.
That mass will fight against the manuverbility of the vehicle for the rest of it's life. Every thrust it makes will need to be proportionally bigger to account for any additional mass.
Re:Does this ver. solve the WinXP security "featur
on
Samba 3.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
If MS were going to make XP not work with Samba, they would have made ALL XP not work, rather than just a few XP installs and at random.
But if it was a conspiracy, and MS really was secretly, intentionally breaking compatibility with Samba, then they'd want to do it on just a few random installs.
That way they deflect attention from themselves, making everyone assume (as you did) that the problem is in Samba, not XP. And when the Samba team goes to try reproducing the user's bug report, chances are it works fine.
Whereas if it were broken all the time, they'd be more quickly able to reverse engineer whatever's needed to achieve compatibility again.
IBM opened theirs to grab market share by having many companies making the hardware
Absolutely not. That sentence isn't even internally consistent. IBM was a hardware maker- how is inviting other companies into the business part of "grabbing marketshare"? And no, they did not intentionally "open" anything. The heroic efforts of Compaq's reverse engineers are well documented.
he original MS-DOS was free.... like a drug dealer, then once folks were hooked in, a price appeared
No, it was not free. IBM bought it from him for a set price, and shipped it with their PCs. It was from the beginning something hardware makers stuffed onto PCs and rolled into the total price the customer pays.
Those aren't all inventions. Some are discoveries. Penicillin is a natural organism, not an artificial lifeform. Nobody "invented" it. And it was discovered in London, by a man from Scotland.
People also forget about canadian talent, and tend to assume they're american.
Since Canada is part of America, that's a fair assumption to make.
"A strongman in tights? It'll never fly!" A part of our heritage.
A bit of apocrypha, that. Shuster was the artist for Superman, but the writing (and therefore most of the invention) was by another man, born in the USA. And anyway, Shuster was an ex-Canadian. 88% of his life, and 100% of his work on Superman, was spent in the USA.
Have your DHCP only hand out addresses to known MACs
The laptops in this example are known MACs. They're company property that gets infected during work-at-home periods.
Also, that approach can be hacked around. A MAC address can be easily falsified. Random pranksters (like the authors of every major worm so far) won't bother to do this, but a genuine targeted attacker (the legendary "cyber terrorist") would. Security professionals should assume the worst.
a machine whose job is to filter aggressively on the assumption it's from a worm-infected laptop.
If you've got filters like that, why not use them all the time? Or if you can identify insecure services that need to be filtered, why not replace them? Why accept that internal LAN protocols will be vulnerable?
A solution like that is a poor stopgap. It does nothing to prevent users with "trusted" hardware from bringing it to a professional hacker, compromising your servers from the inside, and then carrying critical documents home each night before selling them off. The damage of such an attack would be REAL, unlike the wishy-washy "lost revenue" claims from worm-bourne DoS.
Assuming you don't, don't bitch about RIAA being heavy handed by filing lawsuits.
Can't read, huh? I never "bitched" about that.
I'm complaining about their dishonesty. Untruth. Intnerally-inconsistent reasoning. They try to equate song-swapping with theft. The law certainly appears to support them.
Well, OK then. If they want to paint it as theft, then it should be punished like theft. If you're robbed, you call the cops! Nobody files a lawsuit against a thief.
Making it a civil case, instead of a criminal one, undercuts their position that file-swapping is a crime.
OJ Simpson was found innocent of the criminal charges of murder leveled against him, but he was still sued successfully in civil court.
Notice that the civil suit was AFTER the criminal one? The state gets first dibs on felons. If he had been convicted, then proving culpability in the civil case would've been a slam dunk.
there isn't enough evidence
The police are quite good at collecting evidence. In most of the RIAA music-trading lawsuits that have been filed so far, it would've been possible to assemble enough evidence for a criminal conviction ("Beyond reasonable doubt"). If the plaintiff could reach the 51% margin of guilt needed to win a civil suit, then handing that evidence to the police would've brought them to the the even lower degree of proof needed to get a search warrant. Then they could kick in doors, seize hard drives, and do whatever else is needed to build an ironclad case.
The chance of any nonprofessional infringer managing to wipe her hard drive before the police cut power is minimal. And computer-forensics can recover stuff like that. A hard drive full of 3000 MP3s, with no sign of owning the CDs, and corraborating records of P2P transfers made by the defendant... that's more than enough to convict someone. The evidence is there, if the cops are interested in grabbing it.
If we change the system so that you can only sue in civil court someone who is convicted criminally,
I'm not talking about all the non-crime, non-felony things lawsuits can be based on. I'm saying that if something is clearly a crime (as the RIAA claims), then the police should be eager to arrest someone. Or at least make an investigation. Instead, they only care about commercial infringement.
And let's look at it from the PR aspect. Who does the (flag-waving, Bush-voting, PATRIOT-supporting) US Citizen trust more? The government, or a corporate consortium? More importantly, who do they fear more? If they could get a half-dozen P2P sharers dragged to jail in handcuffs, it would do wonders for the chilling-effect.
not allowing laptops isnt an option. some users need mobile connectivity as part of their work.
That's why firewalls are an overrated security device.
Any decently-large organization should assume that evil systems will make it onto the local network. Maybe a laptop is trojaned while it's at home. Maybe the janitor is bribed to leave a PDA in an unused jack behind a shelf. Or most likely, a regular employee wants to escalate her priviledges to make mischief (most "hacks" are insider jobs)
However the attack comes, you should be ready for it, by not giving locally-created network packets any special level of trust.
I've got Norton doing an update once daily on my home machine, and I still got the Blaster virus thanks to my not patching soon enough.
That's why virus-scanners are overrated as a security mechanism.
It's like protecting banks by checking a list of known criminals before letting someone in. Everyone gets to rob a bank at least once! Any determined attacker (as opposed to a random prankster) can have a custom, unrecognizable virus made before assaulting you.
Better than virus-scanning would be to change the unsafe behavior that exposes you to running untrusted code. Of course, that wouldn't help against Blaster much, because it's not a virus!.
Worms are different, and virus-scanners are even less well-suited to handle them.
That reply meant absolutely nothing. It merely argued that CPU opcodes aren't like a high-level programming language. So what?
That may be true, but it has no bearing as to whether or not the Intel x86 is a "proprietary" standard. You just claimed that it's impossible for ANY CPU to be an "open standard", since humans try to avoid using it directly.
sure it's the most widely used instruction set in the world
No, it is not. In cellphones alone there are more Motorola CPUs than Intel has ever sold.
What do you expect them to do? Sit on their asses and let people download whatever the hell they want? It's illegal.
If it's illegal, then they should be able to go to the police with their evidence. An investigation would start, (warrants filed, searches made) and someone would be arrested.
Only then should lawsuits begin (to claim renumeration from the convicted felon).
If the police refuse to treat a behavior like a crime, it's hard to convince the public. Any cop will be happy to nap a "thief" with "$200,000" worth of "stolen" goods...
Just curious, what would be the name of that cheaper non-x86 CPU?
The poster was writing in the future tense. You can tell from the use of "become", as opposed to "be". It was speculation, and doesn't need any relation to existing products to be meaningful.
However, from time to time IBM has offered a new PowerPC chip for less than Intel's top of the line CPU. If it's comprable is a matter of argument (although IBM claims it's better).
You can't call the Pentium or Itanic open standards.
The opcodes are known and well documented. Multiplecompanies besides Intel has created their own reimplementation of the "x86 standard". Dozens more individual programmers have duplicated it in software.
Clueless posting is fun, huh? The creative spelling just adds to it.
If you think that DRAGON BALL thing gonna let China rule the world, please, think again.
The Dragon Ball chip is a US product. Motorola has been selling them for, oh, 6 years now.
According to their plan, the Chinese want to catch up with the world standard sometimes at 2015-2025 timeframe.
Oh no! China has a PLAN. We know how well their last plan worked!
If there's any disaster happens to USA, China's plan will only be accelerated.
Any disaster which hurts the US will slow China's development. They won't have education for their engineers, they won't have research to sponge off of, and there won't be an overseas market for the cheap manufactured goods that provides all their discretionary income.
I don't want my connection to be crawling at 3KB/s because the 14-year old next door is downloading 20GB
If that's the speed your getting, then both you and the 14-year old should be complaining to the ISP about how their advertised 150MB speeds haven't come true.
If they were advertising something they couldn't provide, an honest company has 2 choices: Upgrade service or reduce the promises in advertising.
The company in question is doing neither: They continue to advertise "unlimited high-speed internet access", but have decreased service by imposing a secret limit on it. That's false advertising. An honest business wouldn't promise more than they intend to deliver.
Not to them. "Business-class" means "VPN client", something that is forbidden to "home" users in the Acceptable Use Policy:
you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network
If there truly are zero vulnerabilities, security holes, bugs, etc., it's secure
I thought I just explained the definition of "security". It's different from "safety". Check your local dictionary for more info: security is an assurance of safety.
You might be safe, but if you don't know it, you're not secure.
In this context I think "security" is a process of minimizing risks to acceptable levels for an arbitrary application.
To minimize you must first know. To know you must see.
So? 99.999% of the population can't determine good programming even if the source is open.
They can, if they care to, hire an arbitrary number of reputable cryptologists and software engineers to give independent opinions on the safety. The original authors can't have inserted secret backdoors for fear of being found out by these 3rd party reviews (and then being revealed as either untrustworthy or incompetent)
If the source is closed, that review process is either much more expensive, or impossible (if the country has forbidden reverse engineering).
For example, Microsoft today can get the data from any of their users. They simply have to release a "security patch" which instead of removing a buffer-overflow, inserts one in a way they know how to exploit.
Slashdot Mirror
which historically has been unsuccessfully attempted with atrocious measures like genocide.
Unsuccessful? Seen any Roma lately? No, because they're all dead. A successful genocide. (There may be a few left, but the traits of the average human genome have been altered by effectively wiping out a distinct ethnic group)
This isn't universally apparent now, but the "judenhas" genocide was also quite successful. By eliminating 60% of the Jewish population, and driving the rest into a clustered enclave where reproductive pressures will see them overwhelmed and dissipated within 50 years.
But that's beside the point...the discussion was about the notion that humans currently do not undergo natural selection, which is absurd. We most certainly do.
Here's another way of looking at the claim that "humans aren't evolving". On the North American continent, visit Montana or somewhere north of there, and look at a glacier. Is it moving? By any concievable practical definition, it is immobile and stationary. Yet it's velocity is the same as when it traveled 200 km down from the mountains a millenia ago.
In the same way, we can say that natural selection in humans (and all other major lifeforms) is stopped, since it's progress is far to slow for us to ever observe a change again.
Therefore obviously Homo Sapiens still evolves.
Your definition of evolution is based on "heritable characteristics". DNA is not the only possible such characteristic. After all, it's just a way of transmitting information from one generation to the next, and we've developed other means to do this. Cuneiform is a good example. Gutenberg and ISO9660 are others.
The long term development of technological and political ideas are also forms of evolution. (Some call this "memetics") And since ideas can both mutate and propagate faster than genes, it's possible that the dominant form of future human evolution will be non-genetic.
but you mean weight would be a problem lifing off, not once in space...right?
No, weight is still a problem in space. (Unless you're trying to make a pedantic joke based on the irrelevant of any "weight" outside a gravity field)
If a vehicle is heavy on the earth, that means it's massive, and although weight "vanishes" in space, the mass remains.
That mass will fight against the manuverbility of the vehicle for the rest of it's life. Every thrust it makes will need to be proportionally bigger to account for any additional mass.
If MS were going to make XP not work with Samba, they would have made ALL XP not work, rather than just a few XP installs and at random.
But if it was a conspiracy, and MS really was secretly, intentionally breaking compatibility with Samba, then they'd want to do it on just a few random installs.
That way they deflect attention from themselves, making everyone assume (as you did) that the problem is in Samba, not XP. And when the Samba team goes to try reproducing the user's bug report, chances are it works fine.
Whereas if it were broken all the time, they'd be more quickly able to reverse engineer whatever's needed to achieve compatibility again.
Lies, all lies.
IBM opened theirs to grab market share by having many companies making the hardware
Absolutely not. That sentence isn't even internally consistent. IBM was a hardware maker- how is inviting other companies into the business part of "grabbing marketshare"? And no, they did not intentionally "open" anything. The heroic efforts of Compaq's reverse engineers are well documented.
he original MS-DOS was free.... like a drug dealer, then once folks were hooked in, a price appeared
No, it was not free. IBM bought it from him for a set price, and shipped it with their PCs. It was from the beginning something hardware makers stuffed onto PCs and rolled into the total price the customer pays.
anal beads
Invented in Japan, 1200s.
All canadian inventions.
Those aren't all inventions. Some are discoveries. Penicillin is a natural organism, not an artificial lifeform. Nobody "invented" it. And it was discovered in London, by a man from Scotland.
People also forget about canadian talent, and tend to assume they're american.
Since Canada is part of America, that's a fair assumption to make.
"A strongman in tights? It'll never fly!" A part of our heritage.
A bit of apocrypha, that. Shuster was the artist for Superman, but the writing (and therefore most of the invention) was by another man, born in the USA. And anyway, Shuster was an ex-Canadian. 88% of his life, and 100% of his work on Superman, was spent in the USA.
That definition was inserted into the dictionary around 100 years ago by the publishing industry.
The legal definition of piracy- the one the government might use to charge someone with a crime- is "a violent crime committed on or near the ocean".
You test it before you roll it out, like most larger sites have a policy of doing.
Every DAY? You can test and perform staggered deployments every 24 hours? (Notice the parent said "check windowsupdate every day")
Have your DHCP only hand out addresses to known MACs
The laptops in this example are known MACs. They're company property that gets infected during work-at-home periods.
Also, that approach can be hacked around. A MAC address can be easily falsified. Random pranksters (like the authors of every major worm so far) won't bother to do this, but a genuine targeted attacker (the legendary "cyber terrorist") would. Security professionals should assume the worst.
a machine whose job is to filter aggressively on the assumption it's from a worm-infected laptop.
If you've got filters like that, why not use them all the time? Or if you can identify insecure services that need to be filtered, why not replace them? Why accept that internal LAN protocols will be vulnerable?
A solution like that is a poor stopgap. It does nothing to prevent users with "trusted" hardware from bringing it to a professional hacker, compromising your servers from the inside, and then carrying critical documents home each night before selling them off. The damage of such an attack would be REAL, unlike the wishy-washy "lost revenue" claims from worm-bourne DoS.
Do you even know what a felony is?
Yes.
Assuming you don't, don't bitch about RIAA being heavy handed by filing lawsuits.
Can't read, huh? I never "bitched" about that.
I'm complaining about their dishonesty. Untruth. Intnerally-inconsistent reasoning. They try to equate song-swapping with theft. The law certainly appears to support them.
Well, OK then. If they want to paint it as theft, then it should be punished like theft. If you're robbed, you call the cops! Nobody files a lawsuit against a thief.
Making it a civil case, instead of a criminal one, undercuts their position that file-swapping is a crime.
OJ Simpson was found innocent of the criminal charges of murder leveled against him, but he was still sued successfully in civil court.
Notice that the civil suit was AFTER the criminal one? The state gets first dibs on felons. If he had been convicted, then proving culpability in the civil case would've been a slam dunk.
there isn't enough evidence
The police are quite good at collecting evidence. In most of the RIAA music-trading lawsuits that have been filed so far, it would've been possible to assemble enough evidence for a criminal conviction ("Beyond reasonable doubt"). If the plaintiff could reach the 51% margin of guilt needed to win a civil suit, then handing that evidence to the police would've brought them to the the even lower degree of proof needed to get a search warrant. Then they could kick in doors, seize hard drives, and do whatever else is needed to build an ironclad case.
The chance of any nonprofessional infringer managing to wipe her hard drive before the police cut power is minimal. And computer-forensics can recover stuff like that. A hard drive full of 3000 MP3s, with no sign of owning the CDs, and corraborating records of P2P transfers made by the defendant... that's more than enough to convict someone. The evidence is there, if the cops are interested in grabbing it.
If we change the system so that you can only sue in civil court someone who is convicted criminally,
I'm not talking about all the non-crime, non-felony things lawsuits can be based on. I'm saying that if something is clearly a crime (as the RIAA claims), then the police should be eager to arrest someone. Or at least make an investigation. Instead, they only care about commercial infringement.
And let's look at it from the PR aspect. Who does the (flag-waving, Bush-voting, PATRIOT-supporting) US Citizen trust more? The government, or a corporate consortium? More importantly, who do they fear more? If they could get a half-dozen P2P sharers dragged to jail in handcuffs, it would do wonders for the chilling-effect.
don't you go "misquoting" him.
Sorry, I was quoting the RIAA.
not allowing laptops isnt an option. some users need mobile connectivity as part of their work.
That's why firewalls are an overrated security device.
Any decently-large organization should assume that evil systems will make it onto the local network. Maybe a laptop is trojaned while it's at home. Maybe the janitor is bribed to leave a PDA in an unused jack behind a shelf. Or most likely, a regular employee wants to escalate her priviledges to make mischief (most "hacks" are insider jobs)
However the attack comes, you should be ready for it, by not giving locally-created network packets any special level of trust.
I've got Norton doing an update once daily on my home machine, and I still got the Blaster virus thanks to my not patching soon enough.
That's why virus-scanners are overrated as a security mechanism.
It's like protecting banks by checking a list of known criminals before letting someone in. Everyone gets to rob a bank at least once! Any determined attacker (as opposed to a random prankster) can have a custom, unrecognizable virus made before assaulting you.
Better than virus-scanning would be to change the unsafe behavior that exposes you to running untrusted code. Of course, that wouldn't help against Blaster much, because it's not a virus!.
Worms are different, and virus-scanners are even less well-suited to handle them.
That reply meant absolutely nothing. It merely argued that CPU opcodes aren't like a high-level programming language. So what?
That may be true, but it has no bearing as to whether or not the Intel x86 is a "proprietary" standard. You just claimed that it's impossible for ANY CPU to be an "open standard", since humans try to avoid using it directly.
sure it's the most widely used instruction set in the world
No, it is not. In cellphones alone there are more Motorola CPUs than Intel has ever sold.
What do you expect them to do? Sit on their asses and let people download whatever the hell they want? It's illegal.
If it's illegal, then they should be able to go to the police with their evidence. An investigation would start, (warrants filed, searches made) and someone would be arrested.
Only then should lawsuits begin (to claim renumeration from the convicted felon).
If the police refuse to treat a behavior like a crime, it's hard to convince the public. Any cop will be happy to nap a "thief" with "$200,000" worth of "stolen" goods...
MS will always own the desktop, because frankly, noone has ever COMPETED with them on TECHNICAL merit.
You may be right... Apple always blew them away so totally, it might not be fair to call it a "competition".
Just curious, what would be the name of that cheaper non-x86 CPU?
The poster was writing in the future tense. You can tell from the use of "become", as opposed to "be". It was speculation, and doesn't need any relation to existing products to be meaningful.
However, from time to time IBM has offered a new PowerPC chip for less than Intel's top of the line CPU. If it's comprable is a matter of argument (although IBM claims it's better).
Unfortunately China may have little obligation to obey the GPL since it is based on US/European (Berne convention) copyright law.
So... eleven years ago, when China signed the Berne Convention... you consider that "little" obligation?
And a different jurisdictions from any legal precedents involving the GPL.
From all ZERO of those precedents...
You can't call the Pentium or Itanic open standards.
The opcodes are known and well documented. Multiple companies besides Intel has created their own reimplementation of the "x86 standard". Dozens more individual programmers have duplicated it in software.
It seems much like an open standard.
Clueless posting is fun, huh? The creative spelling just adds to it.
If you think that DRAGON BALL thing gonna let China rule the world, please, think again.
The Dragon Ball chip is a US product. Motorola has been selling them for, oh, 6 years now.
According to their plan, the Chinese want to catch up with the world standard sometimes at 2015-2025 timeframe.
Oh no! China has a PLAN. We know how well their last plan worked!
If there's any disaster happens to USA, China's plan will only be accelerated.
Any disaster which hurts the US will slow China's development. They won't have education for their engineers, they won't have research to sponge off of, and there won't be an overseas market for the cheap manufactured goods that provides all their discretionary income.
They don't need to live by Western standards. I applaud their broad move to Linux.
What part of "Linux" (or Unix, or POSIX) is non-Western? Finland is west of Asia I think.
Seattle, on the other hand, is east of China.
I don't want my connection to be crawling at 3KB/s because the 14-year old next door is downloading 20GB
If that's the speed your getting, then both you and the 14-year old should be complaining to the ISP about how their advertised 150MB speeds haven't come true.
If they were advertising something they couldn't provide, an honest company has 2 choices: Upgrade service or reduce the promises in advertising.
The company in question is doing neither: They continue to advertise "unlimited high-speed internet access", but have decreased service by imposing a secret limit on it. That's false advertising. An honest business wouldn't promise more than they intend to deliver.
Business-class means servers.
Not to them. "Business-class" means "VPN client", something that is forbidden to "home" users in the Acceptable Use Policy:
you agree not to use the Service for operation as an Internet service provider or for any business enterprise or purpose, or as an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network
If there truly are zero vulnerabilities, security holes, bugs, etc., it's secure
I thought I just explained the definition of "security". It's different from "safety". Check your local dictionary for more info: security is an assurance of safety.
You might be safe, but if you don't know it, you're not secure.
In this context I think "security" is a process of minimizing risks to acceptable levels for an arbitrary application.
To minimize you must first know. To know you must see.
So? 99.999% of the population can't determine good programming even if the source is open.
They can, if they care to, hire an arbitrary number of reputable cryptologists and software engineers to give independent opinions on the safety. The original authors can't have inserted secret backdoors for fear of being found out by these 3rd party reviews (and then being revealed as either untrustworthy or incompetent)
If the source is closed, that review process is either much more expensive, or impossible (if the country has forbidden reverse engineering).
For example, Microsoft today can get the data from any of their users. They simply have to release a "security patch" which instead of removing a buffer-overflow, inserts one in a way they know how to exploit.