Gee, this feels a lot like the whole "Freedom Fries" ordeal from a few years back. Once again, an ignorant politician tries to ban a word (of all things) because they don't happen to like the laymen's meaning and don't realize that there are other meanings associated with it.
French Fries, for example, have nothing to do with the country and everything to do with "Frenching," a method of cooking that involves cutting the food into small strips (look it up if you don't believe me.)
P.S. Would you like some freedom with those fries? (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Right on! I've never seen a more insightful comment in my life! And to reply to what someone else said about parent, I don't fsckin' care if that's how "normal" people talk or not. What ever happened to the normal peoples' favorite piece of advice? Of course, I'm referring to "be yourself."
You were never a victim of the really serious bullying/picking-on - I'm not even talking about the one idiot who won't leave you alone but, say, a group of 5 idiots who do everything possible to humiliate you every day, for several years. You have no idea what that can do to a person, and I can't believe you would have the gall to blame the victim.
From the perspective of a victim, your comment is the equivalent of blaming the woman for getting raped. Yes, it's that bad.
Maybe Joe should take the time to find out, if he doesn't appreciate getting spied upon. WMP keeps track of everything you play, and phones home frequently to let Microsoft know.
Yes, but what if all of Europe then decided to get a Mac? "Bully bill" might suddenly become much less intimidating. Other nations will quickly realize that Europe has become immune to viruses and is at a competitive advantage, and might just follow suit.
Privoxy is an open-source web proxy that blocks ads of all kinds, and is highly customizable. It'll run on Linux, Windows, OS X, and god-knows-what-else, and will block all those annoying banners with a high degree of effectiveness. Better yet, it's been available since 2001; once again Microsoft is offering too little, too late.
There is one good thing about large and sluggish bureaucracies: the more time they spend fighting about funding and budgets, the less time they have left to infringe on our rights. When the bureaucracy becomes so large that nobody can propose anything without being overwhelmed by dissenters, we can declare the Internet truly free.
So some European court made a ruling. Big deal - if Google is based in America, how do they plan to enforce that ruling? Even if Google has a Google.fr, I would assume that it's hosted in the U.S., making Google untouchable.
If the Iraqi government fined Google for violating the sacred laws of Allah, would Google pay that fine, too?
A valid point, but I think you misunderstood. My point was that the admins who run the networks (not just DNS admins) are often the only ones who see when something breaks. Users are often entirely unaware of the problems going on in the background, the ones that cause these admins to stay up all night. As long as the buttons still go clickety-click, the users are happy.
DNS admins should have a louder voice on this not because they're "fellow geeks," but because when something goes wrong, they are the first to notice. Therefore, their opinion on the question of "did something go wrong?" is more important.
ICANN appears to have bought into claims that the Internet has broken or will break. Anyone who has used it in the last three weeks knows that claim to be false.
Bullshit. This is clearly written from the perspective of the user, who will click the pretty buttons while completely unaware of what's going on in the background. Instead of asking "anyone who has used it," why not ask a DNS admin or someone who is similarly qualified to make a decision on this point? Those people will tell you loud and clear that this thing indeed caused serious problems.
We'll ignore the fact that on the same day, Gates donated $168 million to fund malaria research, but funnily enough, I doubt we'll see that reported here.
Big deal. With $40 billion in the bank, him donating $168 million is roughly equivalent to you donating a new iPod. A kind gesture to be sure, but nothing to write home about.
Why not take this a step further by blocking anything that the user did not request in a NAT-like fashion? Broadband router users have been enjoying the security that this provides for ages, and I see no reason why everyone else shouldn't, too.
Security-wise, this would block many worms (both present and future) because they would simply be unable to connect to any system. Besides that, it would also block backdoor trojans like NetBus and BackOrfice because, although they'd still be listening, no one would be able to connect to them and control the user's system.
To address the NAT-type problems that this would create, ISPs could automatically make certain exceptions for port blocks that interfere with popular games and whatnot. For advanced users, there would be a control panel (much like those built into NAT firewalls) where they could unblock any or all of the ports.
Google Toolbar
on
Google Turns 5
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I've often wondered why, in all of the attempts to mimic google's toolbar, no one has ever reproduced the handy pagerank indicator; I began hacking at it, wondering if I'll be the first, only to run into a brick wall.
Here's the request it sends; if you duplicate it with telnet or whatever, it really will spit out slashdot's pagerank: GET/search?client=navclient-auto&googleip=O;216.239.5 3.104;131&ch=53856195705&freshness_check=3f1eAVUrj Mj2meFfx-IZI&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&features=Rank&q=inf o:http%3A%2F%2Fslashdot%2Eorg%2F HTTP/1.1 User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; GoogleToolbar 1.1.70-big; Windows XP 5.1) Host: 216.239.53.104 Pragma: no-cache Connection: keep-alive
But there's a little program, the ch= field. That's a special hash of "http://slashdot.org," and if you don't send it, it doesn't work.
So as I continue attempting to work out the algorithm for this mysterious hash, I wonder: why has Google gone to such great lengths to make sure nobody duplicates the toolbar's pagerank indicator? Would a copy of that feature for Mozilla's google toolbar really be so awful?
1. Click on URL, you're redirected to registration/login page 2. Go to URL bar, replace "www" with "archive" in the URL, leaving the rest alone, and hit ENTER 3. The system will bounce you around a few erroneous URLs, before returning you to the homepage 4. All NYT links will now work without registration, thanks to a special cookie set by the bouncing process
A few of my friends participate in this hobby, meaning that I've found out just enough about it to be curious. And one thing I'm curious about is, why do they require the licenses at all?
Better yet, why does demonstrating additional proficiency give you access to more frequencies? Why exactly would you need to know more to successfully use one frequency, than another?
No need to look for new exploits when the existing ones suffice.. 1. Click on URL, you're redirected to registration/login page 2. Go to URL bar, replace "www" with "archive" in the URL, leaving the rest alone, and hit ENTER 3. The system will bounce you around a few erroneous URLs, before returning you to the homepage 4. All NYT links will now work without registration, thanks to a special cookie set by the bouncing process
I'm probably just ignorant, but there's one thing I never understood: why would these companies even let the MS audit guys into the building? If a MS drone wanted to go into my home to make sure my software is paid for, I would defend my home from this intrusion by any means necessary. Why can't companies do the same?
Linux isn't secure; it's securable, and if you simply throw a default RedHat install onto the web, then you're missing the whole point and effectively negating all of the security potential that Linux has to offer.
Both Linux and Windows must first be properly patched and locked down; the differences between the two are:
1. Linux's security model, when properly used, makes it harder for an intruder to go from "foot in the door" to "root access."
2. In the case of Linux, you won't have a whole new set of remote root exploits that need patching 6 hours later.
Slashdot Mirror
..and the inevitable clash between the have's and the have-not's will come. The have-not's will win, and the result will be a new, classless society.
Gee, this feels a lot like the whole "Freedom Fries" ordeal from a few years back. Once again, an ignorant politician tries to ban a word (of all things) because they don't happen to like the laymen's meaning and don't realize that there are other meanings associated with it.
French Fries, for example, have nothing to do with the country and everything to do with "Frenching," a method of cooking that involves cutting the food into small strips (look it up if you don't believe me.)
P.S. Would you like some freedom with those fries? (Sorry, couldn't resist)
Right on! I've never seen a more insightful comment in my life! And to reply to what someone else said about parent, I don't fsckin' care if that's how "normal" people talk or not. What ever happened to the normal peoples' favorite piece of advice? Of course, I'm referring to "be yourself."
From the perspective of a victim, your comment is the equivalent of blaming the woman for getting raped. Yes, it's that bad.
Maybe Joe should take the time to find out, if he doesn't appreciate getting spied upon. WMP keeps track of everything you play, and phones home frequently to let Microsoft know.
Yes, but what if all of Europe then decided to get a Mac? "Bully bill" might suddenly become much less intimidating. Other nations will quickly realize that Europe has become immune to viruses and is at a competitive advantage, and might just follow suit.
Privoxy is an open-source web proxy that blocks ads of all kinds, and is highly customizable. It'll run on Linux, Windows, OS X, and god-knows-what-else, and will block all those annoying banners with a high degree of effectiveness. Better yet, it's been available since 2001; once again Microsoft is offering too little, too late.
There is one good thing about large and sluggish bureaucracies: the more time they spend fighting about funding and budgets, the less time they have left to infringe on our rights. When the bureaucracy becomes so large that nobody can propose anything without being overwhelmed by dissenters, we can declare the Internet truly free.
So some European court made a ruling. Big deal - if Google is based in America, how do they plan to enforce that ruling? Even if Google has a Google.fr, I would assume that it's hosted in the U.S., making Google untouchable.
If the Iraqi government fined Google for violating the sacred laws of Allah, would Google pay that fine, too?
Beowulf cluster of these..oh, wait, yeah!
A valid point, but I think you misunderstood. My point was that the admins who run the networks (not just DNS admins) are often the only ones who see when something breaks. Users are often entirely unaware of the problems going on in the background, the ones that cause these admins to stay up all night. As long as the buttons still go clickety-click, the users are happy.
DNS admins should have a louder voice on this not because they're "fellow geeks," but because when something goes wrong, they are the first to notice. Therefore, their opinion on the question of "did something go wrong?" is more important.
Excellent! Normally I'd have to pay top dollar for such high-grade bullshit.
Bullshit. This is clearly written from the perspective of the user, who will click the pretty buttons while completely unaware of what's going on in the background. Instead of asking "anyone who has used it," why not ask a DNS admin or someone who is similarly qualified to make a decision on this point? Those people will tell you loud and clear that this thing indeed caused serious problems.
Big deal. With $40 billion in the bank, him donating $168 million is roughly equivalent to you donating a new iPod. A kind gesture to be sure, but nothing to write home about.
They'll use it if they don't want spam. If they don't mind it, then there's no problem to begin with.
Without the pesky government, big businesses would be hiring assassins instead of lawyers.
Why not take this a step further by blocking anything that the user did not request in a NAT-like fashion? Broadband router users have been enjoying the security that this provides for ages, and I see no reason why everyone else shouldn't, too.
Security-wise, this would block many worms (both present and future) because they would simply be unable to connect to any system. Besides that, it would also block backdoor trojans like NetBus and BackOrfice because, although they'd still be listening, no one would be able to connect to them and control the user's system.
To address the NAT-type problems that this would create, ISPs could automatically make certain exceptions for port blocks that interfere with popular games and whatnot. For advanced users, there would be a control panel (much like those built into NAT firewalls) where they could unblock any or all of the ports.
I've often wondered why, in all of the attempts to mimic google's toolbar, no one has ever reproduced the handy pagerank indicator; I began hacking at it, wondering if I'll be the first, only to run into a brick wall.
/search?client=navclient-auto&googleip=O;216.239.5 3.104;131&ch=53856195705&freshness_check=3f1eAVUrj Mj2meFfx-IZI&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&features=Rank&q=inf o:http%3A%2F%2Fslashdot%2Eorg%2F HTTP/1.1
Here's the request it sends; if you duplicate it with telnet or whatever, it really will spit out slashdot's pagerank:
GET
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; GoogleToolbar 1.1.70-big; Windows XP 5.1)
Host: 216.239.53.104
Pragma: no-cache
Connection: keep-alive
But there's a little program, the ch= field. That's a special hash of "http://slashdot.org," and if you don't send it, it doesn't work.
So as I continue attempting to work out the algorithm for this mysterious hash, I wonder: why has Google gone to such great lengths to make sure nobody duplicates the toolbar's pagerank indicator? Would a copy of that feature for Mozilla's google toolbar really be so awful?
It was my understanding that Sharman is based outside the U.S. How can they take legal action against an American company like Google?
1. Click on URL, you're redirected to registration/login page
2. Go to URL bar, replace "www" with "archive" in the URL, leaving the rest alone, and hit ENTER
3. The system will bounce you around a few erroneous URLs, before returning you to the homepage
4. All NYT links will now work without registration, thanks to a special cookie set by the bouncing process
A few of my friends participate in this hobby, meaning that I've found out just enough about it to be curious. And one thing I'm curious about is, why do they require the licenses at all?
Better yet, why does demonstrating additional proficiency give you access to more frequencies? Why exactly would you need to know more to successfully use one frequency, than another?
No need to look for new exploits when the existing ones suffice..
1. Click on URL, you're redirected to registration/login page
2. Go to URL bar, replace "www" with "archive" in the URL, leaving the rest alone, and hit ENTER
3. The system will bounce you around a few erroneous URLs, before returning you to the homepage
4. All NYT links will now work without registration, thanks to a special cookie set by the bouncing process
I'm probably just ignorant, but there's one thing I never understood: why would these companies even let the MS audit guys into the building? If a MS drone wanted to go into my home to make sure my software is paid for, I would defend my home from this intrusion by any means necessary. Why can't companies do the same?
Both Linux and Windows must first be properly patched and locked down; the differences between the two are:
1. Linux's security model, when properly used, makes it harder for an intruder to go from "foot in the door" to "root access."
2. In the case of Linux, you won't have a whole new set of remote root exploits that need patching 6 hours later.
Wouldn't this be a better icon for the story?