the facts are a commercial company A (google) are making a profit from unauthorised copying of other peoples content without permission , meaning company B (you) has to spend money (webmaster) or take proactive steps to remove your content from their databases, google are not an ISP or a goverment agency so really they have no buisness in taking without asking other peoples content.
I don't know what planet you're on, but I profit when my site is listed in Google. People spend an inordinate amount of time and money to make sure their site is listed in the best way possible. Are you going to exclude what could possibly be a huge source of revenue for you? But maybe you have some obscure site you don't want anybody to be able to search for. So, given the amount of time it takes to build even the simplest site, is it really that much trouble to upload a robots.txt file with noindex, noarchive, nofollow in it?
Practically speaking, Web sites can "opt out," or include code in their pages that bars Google from caching the page. A tag to exclude "robots" such as "www.nytimes.com/robots.txt" or "NOARCHIVE" typically does the job.
First of all, robots.txt is not a "tag", it's a file. NOARCHIVE is a tag, but it exists within robots.txt, not instead of it as the "or" conjunction would have the unwashed masses believe. Granted, journalists aren't all that tech savvy and are just likely regurgitating a bastardized version based on sketchy notes. But for a supposed tech-oriented site, this kind of reporting is deplorable.
An excuse for what? Netcraft checks your uptime by pinging your machine. They aren't going to be able to log into your machine and check the internal counter that keeps track of your uptime. The limit in the Linux counter has no relevance here.
Which operating systems provide uptime information ?
Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes for are:
BSD/OS
FreeBSD [but not the default configuration in versions 3 to 4.3]
HP-UX [recent versions]
IRIX
Linux 2.1 kernel and later, except on Alpha processor based systems
Solaris 2.6 and later
Windows 2000
Windows Server 2003
Windows XP
Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
AIX
AS/400
Compaq Tru64
DG/UX
MacOS
MacOSX
NT3/Windows 95
NT4/Windows 98
NetBSD/OpenBSD
NetWare
OS/2
OS/390
SCO UNIX
SunOS 4
VM
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.
Why do some Operating Systems never show uptimes above 497 days ?
The method that Netcraft uses to determine the uptime of a server is bounded by an upper limit of 497 days for some Operating Systems (see above). It is therefore not possible to see uptimes for these systems that go beyond this upper limit. Although we could in theory attempt to compute the true uptime for OS's with this upper limit by monitoring for restarts at the expected time, we prefer not to do this as it can be inaccurate and error prone.
su actually stands for "Switch User" I believe, and you can in fact switch to any user:
SU(1) OpenBSD Reference Manual SU(1)
NAME
su - substitute user identity
Okay, I know people are challenged to read the articles, but you should at least read your own post. Like where it says "su - substitute user...", giving a vital clue as to what "su" really stands for.
Great... so they're securing the hell out of the server which accepts the vote. No problem there. How about the client machines? What if I were to write a worm program which spread innocuously through emails with the sole purpose of modifying the user's web browser.
Once the protocol is understood, this shouldn't be too difficult to do. Likely it'll be on a secure site, maybe password protected. Doesn't matter. The modified web browser waits until the user visits http://vote.us.gov or wherever, watches the variables being passed, and simply modifies them. Instead of:
Securing the server is all well and good, but they'll need to think really hard about securing the client side as well. Hint: the choice of who to vote for should also be encoded and (preferably) signed against the user's information. So the vote shouldn't be for "Al Gore" but for a signed and encrypted string which represents Al Gore, making it impossible to derive the signed and encrypted string for "George W. Bush".
Sofistication is well and good, but many times a less sofisticated but better crafted designs / programs can outperform it. Sofistication for it's own sake is usually not worth the tradeoffs.
Yes, that's it. The LDA $C030 is the location for toggling the speaker which, incidentally, loads the A register with a random value. Then it jumps to the subroutine at $FDED which prints out the character to the screen containing the ASCII value stored in the A register. And, of course, rinse and repeat. So it fills up the screen continually with random characters, all the while clicking the speaker. Good for cheap thrills.:)
"After the next carrier, the George H.W. Bush, the Navy intends to unveil a new design; it will be roughly the size of a Nimitz-class ship but with automated systems that could cut the ship's company of 3,200 by one-third or more and a new reactor able to power electromagnetic catapults and directed-energy weapons.
The first of those carriers, CVN-21, is projected to cost about $12 billion. It should reach the fleet around 2014."
So is this the Navy's veresion of the world's most expensive HERF gun?
Put one of these on a shipping container, a box, or a pallet and then tie the returned webpage to a back-end database and you could have a killer app for transportation manifests and shipping invoices.
I'm glad you came up with this idea. You should contact a patent lawyer -- after all, it has neverbeendonebefore.
No. My critical thihnking is that the professor called the work unimportant, and no one with any knowledge of the work has disagreed, so anyone who makes the statement that the work is not trivial is talking out of his ass.
The CIOs who were at the meeting obviously saw the importance of it. I assume you read the article? Had they not seen it as important, they would not have reacted as they did. They would have left the room, unimpressed, and cursed the guy for wasting their time.
Ask any of the CIOs at the meeting (you know, the ones who blanched and "shit their pants" when they saw his work) if it is unimportant. They might give you some insight which is more than a hand-waving argument.
Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Have you spoken to them?
The evidence is presented in the article, which I quote here:
And when they presented them at a forum of chief information officers of the country's largest financial services companies -- clicking on a single cable running into a Manhattan office, for example, and revealing the names of 25 telecommunications providers -- the executives suggested that Gorman and Schintler not be allowed to leave the building with the laptop.
Now perhaps you need a statement from one of the CIOs stating the the work is not unimportant, but I think the average person is able to read between the lines on this. Does wanting to confiscate his laptop sound like a reaction to something which is unimportant?
To anyone who thinks video games should be banned, I ask this question: If the kids were inspired to kill by characters in a book, should we then ban books?
But it's never been about banning video games. Only *violent* video games, and then only for kids. If books are too graphically violent and cause children to act out what's in it, then it might make sense to limit access to those books to kids.
What about TV? Movies? Magazines? Where does it end?
Pretty soon, if this erosion of personal freedom continues, next thing you know children won't be able to pick up a copy of Playboy at their local newsstand or watch the new Debbie Does Denmark in the theatres!
Another interesting question is do violent games desensitize people to violence? Consider an analogy: a boy who grows up in a nudist family won't think anything of seeing naked women -- it's not going to be a big deal. Compare this to a boy who was brought up not even seeing much bare skin at all -- his reaction upon seeing a naked woman will be huge, pardon the pun. At the turn of the century (ie: 1900) it was considered risque for women to show their ankles in public. For a woman to wear a skirt knee-high, she would have been considered a tramp. Times change, and people grow accustomed to the new standard.
Now a kid who grows up playing violent, realistic games could tend to be lsss affronted by violence. How easy would it be for a kid to look out his apartment window to the street below and imagine getting a perfect rail shot to a person below? Or turning the corner in school and hitting the local nerd with a double-barrel shotgun blast? Now that doesn't mean the kid would necessarily consider acting it out in real life, but is that the first step on a slippery slope towards real violence?
His own professor called the work "tedious and unimportant." Do you have more knowledge about this work than this guy's professor?
I'm sure I could find many professors who would call Slashdot tedious and unimportant. Yet here you are. Back in the early 90's, many people thought creating yet another operating system was tedious and unimportant. Yet now we have Linux.
News flash for you: professors don't have perfect knowledge. Yes, they can make mistakes. Asking if one has more knowledge is a red herring. Remember that his professor has likely spent his life studying paper maps and satellite images. Along comes this guy who maps the entire IT infrastructure and the professor says "wtf does this have to do with geography? You just took existing maps and overlaid a bunch of cable diagrams."
In your subsequent post, you write:
Oh yeah, cause the government has never classified unimportant information before.
Is this the extent of your critical thinking skills? Not all classified information is important, therefore this information must not be important either? Really, you'll have to do better than that. By your logic, nuclear launch codes aren't important either. Ask any of the CIOs at the meeting (you know, the ones who blanched and "shit their pants" when they saw his work) if it is unimportant. They might give you some insight which is more than a hand-waving argument.
Re:I love the punk kids....
on
dB Drag Racing
·
· Score: 1
Todays kids have lost there way, but it's not there fault. There was a generation when cars went from big, fast, and loud, to small, slow, and quite. There children of that generation just don't know good quility equipment.
Speaking of losing *their* way, there are three ways to spell the word that sounds like "they're". Clearly the children of your generation just don't know good "quility" grammar and spelling. Now shut up and be "quite" already.
Who makes custom stickers?
on
dB Drag Racing
·
· Score: 1
I've always wanted to have some high-quality stickers made up for myself so that I could place them on all those wanna-be racers. It would be very slick looking, done up professionally, and would be about half the width of the windshield... for maximum visibility of course. The text would read:
"Bush! I live to see you eat that legislation. But before you do, save room for my fist. 'Cuz I'm going to ram it into your stomach, and break your god damned spine!" (Running Man, slightly paraphrased)
Would this work? Make a database of answers that would be simple for a human to answer but hard for a machine to parse.
"What day comes after Wednesday?"
Friday comes after Wednesday, as does Saturday.
"Will you get wet if you stand in the rain?"
Not if I have an umbrella.
"How many fingers does the average person have?"
8
"What is that hair-like stuff on the top of most people's heads called?"
Slashdot Mirror
the facts are a commercial company A (google) are making a profit from unauthorised copying of other peoples content without permission , meaning company B (you) has to spend money (webmaster) or take proactive steps to remove your content from their databases, google are not an ISP or a goverment agency so really they have no buisness in taking without asking other peoples content.
I don't know what planet you're on, but I profit when my site is listed in Google. People spend an inordinate amount of time and money to make sure their site is listed in the best way possible. Are you going to exclude what could possibly be a huge source of revenue for you? But maybe you have some obscure site you don't want anybody to be able to search for. So, given the amount of time it takes to build even the simplest site, is it really that much trouble to upload a robots.txt file with noindex, noarchive, nofollow in it?
Which operating systems provide uptime information ?
Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes for are:
Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.
Why do some Operating Systems never show uptimes above 497 days ?
The method that Netcraft uses to determine the uptime of a server is bounded by an upper limit of 497 days for some Operating Systems (see above). It is therefore not possible to see uptimes for these systems that go beyond this upper limit. Although we could in theory attempt to compute the true uptime for OS's with this upper limit by monitoring for restarts at the expected time, we prefer not to do this as it can be inaccurate and error prone.
su actually stands for "Switch User" I believe, and you can in fact switch to any user:
SU(1) OpenBSD Reference Manual SU(1)
NAME
su - substitute user identity
Okay, I know people are challenged to read the articles, but you should at least read your own post. Like where it says "su - substitute user...", giving a vital clue as to what "su" really stands for.
Great... so they're securing the hell out of the server which accepts the vote. No problem there. How about the client machines? What if I were to write a worm program which spread innocuously through emails with the sole purpose of modifying the user's web browser.
i ewpqkd
i ewpqkd
Once the protocol is understood, this shouldn't be too difficult to do. Likely it'll be on a secure site, maybe password protected. Doesn't matter. The modified web browser waits until the user visits http://vote.us.gov or wherever, watches the variables being passed, and simply modifies them. Instead of:
name=John+Smith
secretcode=K38DJSH38
password=a
vote=Al+Gore
It changes it to:
name=John+Smith
secretcode=K38DJSH38
password=a
vote=George+W.+Bush
Securing the server is all well and good, but they'll need to think really hard about securing the client side as well. Hint: the choice of who to vote for should also be encoded and (preferably) signed against the user's information. So the vote shouldn't be for "Al Gore" but for a signed and encrypted string which represents Al Gore, making it impossible to derive the signed and encrypted string for "George W. Bush".
That's an interesting filosofy.
Err... wrong. Try it. It'll run forever. It's in assembly which isn't interpreted by the ProDOS runtime.
Slightly more modern entry, less obfuscated, to see if I'm remembering it right:
:)
]mtr
*!
!300: lda c030
! jsr fded
! jmp 300
!
*q
]call 768
Yes, that's it. The LDA $C030 is the location for toggling the speaker which, incidentally, loads the A register with a random value. Then it jumps to the subroutine at $FDED which prints out the character to the screen containing the ASCII value stored in the A register. And, of course, rinse and repeat. So it fills up the screen continually with random characters, all the while clicking the speaker. Good for cheap thrills.
"After the next carrier, the George H.W. Bush, the Navy intends to unveil a new design; it will be roughly the size of a Nimitz-class ship but with automated systems that could cut the ship's company of 3,200 by one-third or more and a new reactor able to power electromagnetic catapults and directed-energy weapons.
The first of those carriers, CVN-21, is projected to cost about $12 billion. It should reach the fleet around 2014."
So is this the Navy's veresion of the world's most expensive HERF gun?
I'm glad you came up with this idea. You should contact a patent lawyer -- after all, it has never been done before.
The CIOs who were at the meeting obviously saw the importance of it. I assume you read the article? Had they not seen it as important, they would not have reacted as they did. They would have left the room, unimpressed, and cursed the guy for wasting their time.
Maybe they will. Maybe they won't. Have you spoken to them?
The evidence is presented in the article, which I quote here:
Now perhaps you need a statement from one of the CIOs stating the the work is not unimportant, but I think the average person is able to read between the lines on this. Does wanting to confiscate his laptop sound like a reaction to something which is unimportant?
But it's never been about banning video games. Only *violent* video games, and then only for kids. If books are too graphically violent and cause children to act out what's in it, then it might make sense to limit access to those books to kids.
What about TV? Movies? Magazines? Where does it end?
Pretty soon, if this erosion of personal freedom continues, next thing you know children won't be able to pick up a copy of Playboy at their local newsstand or watch the new Debbie Does Denmark in the theatres!
Now a kid who grows up playing violent, realistic games could tend to be lsss affronted by violence. How easy would it be for a kid to look out his apartment window to the street below and imagine getting a perfect rail shot to a person below? Or turning the corner in school and hitting the local nerd with a double-barrel shotgun blast? Now that doesn't mean the kid would necessarily consider acting it out in real life, but is that the first step on a slippery slope towards real violence?
I'm sure I could find many professors who would call Slashdot tedious and unimportant. Yet here you are. Back in the early 90's, many people thought creating yet another operating system was tedious and unimportant. Yet now we have Linux.
News flash for you: professors don't have perfect knowledge. Yes, they can make mistakes. Asking if one has more knowledge is a red herring. Remember that his professor has likely spent his life studying paper maps and satellite images. Along comes this guy who maps the entire IT infrastructure and the professor says "wtf does this have to do with geography? You just took existing maps and overlaid a bunch of cable diagrams."
In your subsequent post, you write:
Oh yeah, cause the government has never classified unimportant information before.
Is this the extent of your critical thinking skills? Not all classified information is important, therefore this information must not be important either? Really, you'll have to do better than that. By your logic, nuclear launch codes aren't important either. Ask any of the CIOs at the meeting (you know, the ones who blanched and "shit their pants" when they saw his work) if it is unimportant. They might give you some insight which is more than a hand-waving argument.
Somewhere in that statement is an amusing parallel to the average Slashdot reader that's just waiting to come out.
Did you see the size of that? I'm just imagining how that would taste dipped in clarified garlic butter right now...
But seriously... in Soviet Russia, a beowolf cluster of these imagines you!
The technical term is "the brown noise". :-)
I think what you meant was brownian motion.
Speaking of losing *their* way, there are three ways to spell the word that sounds like "they're". Clearly the children of your generation just don't know good "quility" grammar and spelling. Now shut up and be "quite" already.
"Bush! I live to see you eat that legislation. But before you do, save room for my fist. 'Cuz I'm going to ram it into your stomach, and break your god damned spine!" (Running Man, slightly paraphrased)
Friday comes after Wednesday, as does Saturday.
"Will you get wet if you stand in the rain?"
Not if I have an umbrella.
"How many fingers does the average person have?"
8
"What is that hair-like stuff on the top of most people's heads called?"
Eyebrows.
SCO was too busy imagining a beowolf cluster of these.