Maybe take a new snapshot every day or week, see the web evolve.
How much time do you think it's needed to take a snapshot of the Web? Most certainly much longer than a day or even a week. My bet would be several months at the very least.
After years of discussing the same subjects over and over again on Slashdot, you'd think people would have learned something about intellectual property.
Hint: with the expiration of your copyright you are not losing any physical property. You are losing the potential of profiting from some work you completed (many) years ago. Surely you can see the difference.
Because the bit that made me laugh hardest was the invented -fomit-instructions gcc flag. I mean, -fomit-instructions, get it? Now, don't look at me funny.
And somebody moderated it Offtopic. These moderators have no heart. (Yep, and I know somebody's idea of a joke will be moderating this as Offtopic, too).
I wonder when they'll finally realize that you can't make a thinking machine.
I honestly don't think we understand what makes a human conscious.
Don't these two statements seem a little contradictory? If we don't know what makes a human conscious, how have you decided it's impossible to replicate consciousness in software?
BTW I don't believe AI investigators are trying to make a provably conscious machine. A machine that could reliably process human language in the proper context would be useful enough without needing to "prove" anything about it.
There is obviously not a shortage of astronaughts wanting to go up in the space shuttle. It is not like we are strapping space monkies into the shuttle and sending them up against their will. These are smart educated people, who train hard to be astronaughts and are willing to give their lives to go into space and be pioneers.
This is what happens when you learn spelling with the titles of porn movies.
Of course usually you don't need to backup your programs, so leaving them unprotected does not mean any more work for you (until you are attacked, at least). That's a point in favor of running as root.
However, I don't agree that backing up your data takes less time than reinstalling and setting up the system. In my experience it's quite the contrary. Even more if you take into account that 1) a good part of the user configuration lives under $HOME (and thus is deletable by a non-root attacker), and 2) the users Lindows is directed at are not likely to do any fancy system configuration. In fact, I'd bet the only system configuration most Lindows users would do is setting up their Internet connection. Almost everything else can and should be detected by the installation program.
Actually, whether Robertson realises it or not he is NOT selling a single user system, he is selling a single household system.
I meant user as in user account, not as in physical person. If you want security and user separation, traditional Linux systems are there for you. Why reinvent Mandrake?
However, please remember that computer geeks are a minority. There are many users out there for whom any system administration requirements are excessive. Lindows provides those users with a valid option: as easy as Windows 95/98/ME, at least as functional, and with better security because there are less remote holes for Linux. No need to diss Lindows because we geeks wouldn't run it; it's not directed at us.
Not a very realistic example; it would be immediately detected (and possibly corrected) by the user and of no use to the attacker. Furthermore, running everything as root prevents this problem as there are no passwords. Try again.
rm -rf/
Logged in as normal user: You lose your personal files and some config work you've done.
i.e. what a normal user is most interested in preserving.
If you keep backups anywhere you're ok.
It seems to me it's quite easier (and safer) to keep backups of the programs, since they don't change frequently and thus can be burned in CDs. And if your non-root user has been "infected" the trojan/virus can keep deleting your documents until you reinstall the system -- the same thing you'd have to do if the attacker had root access. If you have already lost your documents (which could happen root or non root), reinstalling a few programs from CDs is the least of your worries.
What you don't realize is that, for its intended audience, running as non-root does not provide any kind of additional security. I challenge you to provide a realistic example of something nasty that could be done with a Lindows machine that requires root access by the attacker. I can only think of deleting programs and such (but messing with the user configuration would have the same effect for a computer illiterate user) and listening on ports lower than 1024 (hardly a big issue).
I don't understand why so many people get their panties in a bunch because Lindows runs as root. Remember this is intended to be run as a single user system, and by people who are not tech-savvy.
If the normal-use account is compromised, what is the big advantage if it's not the root account? It would be real easy to deceive the user into giving up his root password, and that would not even be necessary to do the most damage, namely deleting/infecting/trojanning the user documents.
What is lost to the hacker/virus if it can't get root? Not being able to run a webserver at port 80? Not something to make so much noise about, I think.
Also, I'm curious if you have any information on this "water is wet" theory I've been hearing about.
Not yet, but a start-up founded by Steve Wozniak (yes, that Steve Wozniak) has already made significant advances towards the commercial production of humid water. Just imagine the possibilities!
I had never thought of it, but now that you mention it can. The absolute value of the minimum integer is greater than the maximum integer, so dividing the minimum integer by -1 will overflow. I just tested it with gcc 3.2 and the result is the minimum integer again.
you'd think they had already created every type of bug. Well, in colaboration with EA they've just developed a new type of bug: THE USEFUL BUG. Now where are all those bashers that say that Microsoft never invented anything new?
Slashdot Mirror
One shouldn't repeat a cliche without knowing the hysterical raisins of its development.
Maybe take a new snapshot every day or week, see the web evolve.
How much time do you think it's needed to take a snapshot of the Web? Most certainly much longer than a day or even a week. My bet would be several months at the very least.
The talking socks network security book is expected any time now.
FUCK! SHIT! FUCK! Why don't I read the WHOLE post before starting these long involved replies?
It might have something to do with your nick.
After years of discussing the same subjects over and over again on Slashdot, you'd think people would have learned something about intellectual property.
Hint: with the expiration of your copyright you are not losing any physical property. You are losing the potential of profiting from some work you completed (many) years ago. Surely you can see the difference.
Because the bit that made me laugh hardest was the invented -fomit-instructions gcc flag. I mean, -fomit-instructions, get it? Now, don't look at me funny.
His company had insurance against dishonest acts by employees
They should have bought insurance against dishonest acts by the insurance company.
And somebody moderated it Offtopic. These moderators have no heart. (Yep, and I know somebody's idea of a joke will be moderating this as Offtopic, too).
I don't think the point of this story was "how we keep old men in math research", but anyway:
aren't there enough old men around anyway?
No, you sexist ageist pig.
Nope. That won't even compile. The correct soluction:
function Feet_To_Meters(Length_In_Feet : in Feet) return Meters is
begin
return Length_In_Feet * 0.3048;
end Feet_To_Meters;
In fact some X servers for Linux are FASTER than Windows.
Wow man. FASTER than Windows. That's the stuff dreams are made of.
You aren't really insightful. You're just programmed to act insightful.
I wonder when they'll finally realize that you can't make a thinking machine.
I honestly don't think we understand what makes a human conscious.
Don't these two statements seem a little contradictory? If we don't know what makes a human conscious, how have you decided it's impossible to replicate consciousness in software?
BTW I don't believe AI investigators are trying to make a provably conscious machine. A machine that could reliably process human language in the proper context would be useful enough without needing to "prove" anything about it.
There is obviously not a shortage of astronaughts wanting to go up in the space shuttle. It is not like we are strapping space monkies into the shuttle and sending them up against their will. These are smart educated people, who train hard to be astronaughts and are willing to give their lives to go into space and be pioneers.
This is what happens when you learn spelling with the titles of porn movies.
Of course usually you don't need to backup your programs, so leaving them unprotected does not mean any more work for you (until you are attacked, at least). That's a point in favor of running as root.
However, I don't agree that backing up your data takes less time than reinstalling and setting up the system. In my experience it's quite the contrary. Even more if you take into account that 1) a good part of the user configuration lives under $HOME (and thus is deletable by a non-root attacker), and 2) the users Lindows is directed at are not likely to do any fancy system configuration. In fact, I'd bet the only system configuration most Lindows users would do is setting up their Internet connection. Almost everything else can and should be detected by the installation program.
Actually, whether Robertson realises it or not he is NOT selling a single user system, he is selling a single household system.
I meant user as in user account, not as in physical person. If you want security and user separation, traditional Linux systems are there for you. Why reinvent Mandrake?
However, please remember that computer geeks are a minority. There are many users out there for whom any system administration requirements are excessive. Lindows provides those users with a valid option: as easy as Windows 95/98/ME, at least as functional, and with better security because there are less remote holes for Linux. No need to diss Lindows because we geeks wouldn't run it; it's not directed at us.
passwd somethingdifferentthatyoudontknowabout
Not a very realistic example; it would be immediately detected (and possibly corrected) by the user and of no use to the attacker. Furthermore, running everything as root prevents this problem as there are no passwords. Try again.
rm -rf /
Logged in as normal user: You lose your personal files and some config work you've done.
i.e. what a normal user is most interested in preserving.
If you keep backups anywhere you're ok.
It seems to me it's quite easier (and safer) to keep backups of the programs, since they don't change frequently and thus can be burned in CDs. And if your non-root user has been "infected" the trojan/virus can keep deleting your documents until you reinstall the system -- the same thing you'd have to do if the attacker had root access. If you have already lost your documents (which could happen root or non root), reinstalling a few programs from CDs is the least of your worries.
I think I'll stay with my freedom wi-fi, thank you!
What you don't realize is that, for its intended audience, running as non-root does not provide any kind of additional security. I challenge you to provide a realistic example of something nasty that could be done with a Lindows machine that requires root access by the attacker. I can only think of deleting programs and such (but messing with the user configuration would have the same effect for a computer illiterate user) and listening on ports lower than 1024 (hardly a big issue).
I don't understand why so many people get their panties in a bunch because Lindows runs as root. Remember this is intended to be run as a single user system, and by people who are not tech-savvy.
If the normal-use account is compromised, what is the big advantage if it's not the root account? It would be real easy to deceive the user into giving up his root password, and that would not even be necessary to do the most damage, namely deleting/infecting/trojanning the user documents.
What is lost to the hacker/virus if it can't get root? Not being able to run a webserver at port 80? Not something to make so much noise about, I think.
The FreeBSD Core Team is dying ;-).
Plus power received varies as an inverse square law of the distance from the transmitting site.
Not really. If your antennas are directional enough that the main radiation lobe is caught at reception, the losses are much lower.
Also, I'm curious if you have any information on this "water is wet" theory I've been hearing about.
Not yet, but a start-up founded by Steve Wozniak (yes, that Steve Wozniak) has already made significant advances towards the commercial production of humid water. Just imagine the possibilities!
I had never thought of it, but now that you mention it can. The absolute value of the minimum integer is greater than the maximum integer, so dividing the minimum integer by -1 will overflow. I just tested it with gcc 3.2 and the result is the minimum integer again.
you'd think they had already created every type of bug. Well, in colaboration with EA they've just developed a new type of bug: THE USEFUL BUG. Now where are all those bashers that say that Microsoft never invented anything new?