If you really want grass pellets, just go on down to your local nursery. If the guy running the chemicals/fertilizers/grass seed department has any clue as to what is available he could order some in for you. I have had several vendars pitch grass pellets as a mulch for grass seed. The only problem is that it is expensive. To mulch about 30 sq feet cost is close to $10. The other problem that I see is that there are issues with ferilization. Grass is brutal on the requirements of nitrogen. That is why all the home-owning Slashdotters that want a nice lawn are always fertilizing. In a commercial setting, you had better believe that people are going to fertilize -- the more nitrogen that is applied to the ground the faster the grass will grow (to a point). And fertilizer for grass, that is quality, anyway, is not cheap. You could always through some ammonia sulfate (21-0-0) or urea down but you run the risk of burning the hell out of it in the middle of the summer. So that means that you are either playing with a foliar feeder, which doesn't promote deep root growth, or your using CDU, IBDU, or MethEX fertilizer. The USDA recommends as the minium on turf 3.5 lbs/1,000/per year. You could let it go with out fertilizing, but then you run the risk of a diminishing return on the yield/sq foot. The the other problem is that he was talking about a periannial grasses. Thats a nice idea. But the bigger problem is that even though grasses are periannials, there are bigger problems. If you go with a fescue or a rye grass they end up thinning out over time. A kentucky blue has the ability to creap, but the fertilizer requirement is very high. He meantioned using an orchard grass. Orchard grasses are aggressive in nature, but they are a clumping grass. Grasses will reseed if you let them, but then again, it requires fertilizer in order to get the grass to preform well and to germinate the seed. You also have major problems with soil pH. In most areas the soil is either too acidic or way to alkaline. Very few areas of the country have soil that is nice to grass. So I guess the point of this rant is that the article doesn't explore the horticultural issues. Perhaps I am just skeptical, but grass is not an easy, forget about it for 70 days solution. Turf grass or for that matter, fields of grass does not accure naturally in nature. If it is unmaintained it will go wild in a matter of years -- if you want to market Weed Pellets, then it will be low maintance. The cost of having turf fields is enourmous. That is why turf sod (the American meaning of sod) is so expensive.
At my University there is a strict honor code. Every Winter semester students must be endorsed, meaning that they have met with an advisor and have committed to abide by the rules of the honor code. There are only about 70 people that can do the endorsements on campus. A failure to get endorsed means that you are no longer a student and you are blocked from registering. For some of my volunteer work, I am the clerk for one of these advisors. One of the things the advisor asked me to do was to enter in endorsements into the computer. We were given a six digit number to sign in, with a ten digit, alpha-numeric, randomly assigned password. The letter with the password did not come with the sign in. Further, the letter stated that the University doesn't even know the password, so it should be kept safe. Advisors were asked to keep the password in strict confidence, and not to disclose them to anyone, under any circumstances. To top it off, the University set it so that there was a narrow time period for the endorsements to be done. So assuming that you managed to find out the user name for you advisor, you would have to brute force the password within time. Needless to say, I would argue, at least at my school, they are not careless. In fact, I would argue that they are erring on the side that someone will try to hack the system. But the school also takes computer issues seriously. The computer use policy is very strict, and makes it clear that abuse of a computer, on or off campus is grounds for getting expelled.
Or a cool way to compromise a computer system. On an unmanaged network, you could cause some serious trouble. If you were to put a sniffer on it, and then forward all the packets to a remote computer, you could have some real fun. Or you could use it to remotely connect to a network. The worst part about it is that it could be hard to detect. Imagine the chance of it being caught unless someone wanted to plug a device in; unless there was a really astute and annoyed system admin -- but then again, he would probably be running a managed network and would detect the compromise. However, it isn't all that powerful, so it is limited in the scope of the damage. But it still could allow for someone to put a VPN on a network.
LOL! Actually, one of the funniest things that I saw was this paranoid freak at work. He has three or four different anti-spyware programs and just as many privacy programs. He didn't trust anyone. Except, his password was "2222" -- for everything. I was fixing his computer and asked him what his password was, and it was "2222." Email problems, password, "2222". Anyhow, I found it interesting that he had gone through great lengths to encyrpt all his data, and used the password of "2222." I would love to have seen how fast the DNA machine could crack this one.
Secret Service Agent 1: "We'll, let's hope we get this back in..." Secret Service Agent 2: "DAMN! It was like 0.00041 seconds!"
Would you give credit to your arch-enemy? I mean, look at the situation here. Groklaw is anti-SCO. And putting links to Groklaw and TuxRocks, might give attention where they don't want it -- to the enemy. What SCO wants is to look good in their own light, not in the shadows cast by Groklaw or TuxRocks. Even though it is unethical, the people who are going to care are those that read Groklaw or TuxRocks; the pro-SCO people are going to go to a pro-SCO place, and are probably not going to read anti-SCO writings. They are not trying to win over the anti-SCO group, they are trying to convince the small minority that is buying their claims that SCO still has a case. Whenever we see SCO doing something that makes us go, "What the @#$!," just remeber what their goal is, and what our goals are. It is a whole different world-view than what the FOSS community embraces.
Heck, what if our dot are confused with their porn? We might offend them. Or worse yet, what if our bitmaps are actually comments made in poor taste about their mom? I mean, you could start a galatic war over something like this.
Forgive me for asking, but why on earth does the article make reference to Marxian thought? His economic theories have been largely disproved, much less should they be relied on as a source of authority in a capitalistic society. Even if you are a socialist, there are far more authoritative and modern socialist thinkers which can be quoted. Besides, Marx argued for the voilent overthrow of capitalism. I had trouble digesting the argument that by not allowing people to play video games, they might lose their identity.
What is more interesting is that IBM, according to the link you provided, is developing a GPL'ed version of TCPA for Linux. I think that is an important thing to note. Further, anyone that has said anything on Trusted Computing ought to take a look at that link. It dispells some myths and misconceptions about Trust Computing. After reading it, I am not too worried. The one thing that is common to the article is that it is to protect data, not DRM'ed stuff, against external hardware attack. In otherwords, the attitude of the article is that it is to protect you from some punk using software to get to your data like virii and trojans. IBM flattly denies that trusted computing is an attempt to implement DRM -- they even say that the scheme is poorly executed for use as a DRM. You will also notice the tone of the CNet article -- it said nothing about trusted OS's. Besides, you can bet that there would be issues with anti-trust concerns it trusted computer limited OS accessability.
The whole purpouse was to gather evidence and details of the botnets. If you don't understand how the bots work, then it is hard to find how to defend against them. By knowing the targets, the goals and how they communicate you can both detect them on a network, and defend against them (for example, if you administer a corparate network, having the signitures of a bot with Snort can be quite useful in intercepting bot traffic). The other interesting thing was that the bot nets use IRC channels to communicate. If they didn't do this little project, then the communcation methods wouldn't be understood. The value of having this information is far more useful than deleting the bot off a computer. Saying that you should delete them is akin to telling anti-virus firms that they should merely delete the virii and not study them at all.
Agreed. I don't care if you are a script kiddie; if you get a botnet that big, then you command my respect -- not because of technical skills, but the amount of computing capital that you have, and the power that you can wield on the internet with it. Now, that is not to say that you may know how to use it, but you could still sell that bot net to someone else.
But you have just answered the question -- less than 50% is still not most. Also, you will notice the parent argued, or at least insinuated that 99% of people have done illegal drugs.
The war on drugs analogy doesnt work as it essentially targets 99% of the population at one time or the other. While I don't mean to be a prick, I have to disagree with you on the issue of most people having done drugs. Out of my peers, none of us have done illegal drugs once. Now, I am in a religiously conservative area, but to say that most is flat wrong. It may be according to your world view, but for most I would say they haven't.
However, I agree with you on the scope of the legislation. Since there is a smaller group of people doing spamming than doing drugs, it does help. But you also have to take into account the fact that drug groups are specifically designed, organized and have become effective at avoiding law enforcment. Spammers on the other hand, are a whole lot easier to catch -- there are ways to detect where the spam is comming from and gather evidence is easier (there is only a limited way that spam can get into a country, where there are thousands of ways that drugs can find their way into a country). But to compare the two is like comparing apples and organges.
Yeah the question of why is now more entertaining -- he could have pitched this as an "Integrated War-driving solution." It would be kinda of interesting to read the posts if it was pitched that way instead of an in-console multimedia center. But then again, most people don't think of using a Mac as the preferred way to do war-driving.
What I am interested in finding out is how the computer fairs after a nice hot summer. An August component causulty report would be kind of interesting. Well I understand that the Mac mini does have too much in terms of fans, that car does have a black interior. I can only imagine what would happen if you tried to turn it on when the car tempetures reach 140F in the sun. But I guess if he is far enough north, he shouldn't have too many problems...maybe an Idaho or Minnesota summer.
I just bought myself an HP with a 3200+ AMD64, and all I can say is wow! I love the thing. It is a little bit on the heavy side, and the fan runs (although not a loud fan) all the time. But the performance is mind blowing. I am so happy with the purchase. At school we have dual P4 2.8's that we use for programming, and this thing runs the programs on campus just as fast if not faster. I am a little bummed about not waiting for the Turion, but frankly, I am extremely happy, and would recommend an AMD64 notebook to anyone. I looked for a while and when the price was right, I jumped on it. Anyhow, like I said, if your thinking about an 64 laptop go for it. You won't be disappointed with the performance (well, except for the hard disk lag).
Normally I don't care to respond to AC's but here you go: "...they normally work by emulating services and operating systems. Attacker activity is limited to the level of emulation by the honeypot. For example, an emulated FTP service listening on port 21 may just emulate a FTP login, or it may support a variety of additional FTP commands. The advantages of a low-interaction honeypot is their simplicity. These honeypots tend to be easier to deploy and maintain, with minimal risk. Usually they involve installing software, selecting the operating systems and services you want to emulate and monitor, and letting the honeypot go from there. This plug and play approach makes deploying them very easy for most organizations...Some honeypots, such as Honeyd, can not only emulate services, but emulate actual operating systems. In other words, Honeyd can appear to the attacker to be a Cisco router, WinXP webserver, or Linux DNS server. There are several advantages to emulating different operating systems. First, the honeypot can better blend in with existing networks if the honeypot has the same appearance and behavior of production systems. Second, you can target specific attackers by providing systems and services they often target, or systems and services you want to learn about...When used for production purposes, honeypots are protecting an organization. This would include preventing, detecting, or helping organizations respond to an attack." http://www.tracking-hackers.com/papers/honeypots .h tml
This is what I meant. In terms of the coherent thought, what I was asking is if I could deploy a honeypot and then have hackers try to hack the system. If you let them in on the honeypot does that count as being hacked? If the hacker thinks that they got in, but really only got into a fake system that was emulated, then does that count as not being hacked, since the root system was not compromised.
However, this presents an interesting attitude -- those with degrees think they are better and those with out degrees think that they are also as high. Usually those with out a degree are the ones that malaign education. Where I work, there is an interesting relationship. I work as Garden Center Manager, while pursuing my degree in Information Systems. All of my knowledge in plants is that which I have learned on my own and through on the job experience. My knowledge is practical in the area of horticulture. My problem is that I don't have a sufficent framework to understand how some of the products work. Sometimes the formally educated comes to me to ask questions, and sometimes I go to them to ask them questions. From my experience of having learned how to program on my own, and drawing on the experience of having worked with plants, I can see the value an education. I have become a much better programmer learning in a formal structure. The value that I can see is that formal education teaches people how to think the same way and why things are done in a certain way.
I guess the point here is that the formal and informal learning all have value. It seems like those who haven't had a formal education have an inferiority complex, and those who have had a formal education have a superiority complex. A degree in whatever, while merely a piece of paper represents that the person has done something, and learned how to learn. I know that the lessons that I have learned in college are far beyond the classes I have taken. And if I would not trade what I have learned for anything. Sure it would be nice to make a ton of money right now, and to enjoy the perks, the evolution of my character, personality, and knowledge is worth too much to me. When I graduate, it is going to be worth far more than a piece of paper: it will represent a period of my life where I have grown up a whole lot.
Another question that needs to be asked is what relation does this spyware have with others? From my experience, if you get one piece of spyware you spend the next two weeks cleaning off various spyware programs. I have come to my own conclusion that spyware likes to invite friends onto your computer. Does anyone know of a database that tracks the relationships between spyware?
To keep my laptop clean from spyware I have installed M$ Virtual Machine on my computer. That way when I want to run something that might be suspect, I just launch a virtual machine of Windows XP, and go. Of course I end up with a virtual machine that I end up blowing away from time to time, but at least I don't have to worry about infecting the host machine.
Hey, I will be the first one to say that drug prices are insane. I have one prescription that I don't take because it costs too much -- I only take it when I have too. But if a drug company has the fear of immenient domain, what is going to keep a drug company innovating and researching? The idea of patents is to protect the innovator's investment and to encourage innovation. If I were a drug company, I would threaten to close shop. The drug companies may enjoy high profits, but the R&D costs are insane too.
I think that your comments sum up the argument between those who are conservative and those who are liberal. (Since I am a conservative who expresses his opinion, I fully expect to be moderated down for this. Slashdot's moderation system does a good job of political censorship for conservative thought.) The main disagreement is over the power of words and images. I maintain that words and pictures have power over the viewers (for example, there is evidence that pornographic material is more addictive than cocaine -- exposure to pornography causes a release of endorphines, and a chemcial dependency on natural endorphines happens). If people are exposed to certain things, then their tendency to do those things increases. If you are trying to prevent violence, then limit the exposure of violence. The argument that you can simply change the channel works to a point. It may work for adults who know what they want to watch and not watch. But when teenagers who are away from their parents are exposed to salacious and violent material, that is a different story. So then the parents can opt not to have a TV or try to controll their children better. There is no way to effective turn off technology for you unless you move to a third world country or become Amish. With the FCC regulating indecency, it is preventing a minority of people (i.e. Hollywood) from inposing indecency on the majority that disagree (most parents don't want their children exposed to violent, pornographic material). Which, by the way is not political censorship. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has the right to prevent indecent material from being shown, and even created the "Community Standards," test. The FCC regulates publicly owned airwaves. That is the reason they can regulate the content. People who want to express indecent ideas, topics and presentations should adopt a forum that is not regulated. Like Howard Stern did. Until the public opinion shifts to where it does not want the FCC to regulate indecency, then people should play by the rules. The broadcasters know the rules. They should abide by the rules, even though they think they are stupid.
It biols down to this: should government take a role in enforcing the moral attitude of the majority on publicly owned airwaves? Or should the government have no say in the moral attitudes on publicly owned airwaves? Since I think they should, I estimate ten minutes before I modded down to "overrated," or "flamebait," or "troll".
What, did someone just say "red herring?" Oooh, ooh, how about an "over simplification?" Maybe, a "hasty generalization?"
In all seriousiness, how does comparing a nuclear reactor indictant relate to the FCC? The two agencies, as pointed out by the parent are two different agencies, and the scope of inpact is significantly different.
And, it is a poorly written and present article. Where are the numbers? When there is a nuclear accident, the reglatory commision only fines one organization. But when there is a indecent broadcast, the FCC fines each station broadcasting individually. And who bears the cost of the fine? In the case of a nuclear reactor, which is providing power, the customers are the ones that end up paying the burden of the fine. So while, you might be able to kill an elderly person in a nursing home, and pay less than an indecency fine, the article does not point out that the fact that you run the severe risk of crinimal charges (anywhere from criminal neglence to manslaughter or straight-up murder). In a nuclear accident, you also run the risk of jail time, depending on the nature of the accident. My personal freedom is worth a whole lot more than several million.
And then you look at the source. The Rolling Stones is one that apposes the Bush administration and any form of indecency censorship. But I guess that means that I may be guilty of a "personal attack."
However, it is something that I have seen before. My dad has two hard drive wind chimes in his backyard -- both made of between five and seven platters. It is actually a pretty funny sounding wind chime. You get clanks and good ringing from time to time.
Slashdot Mirror
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
If you really want grass pellets, just go on down to your local nursery. If the guy running the chemicals/fertilizers/grass seed department has any clue as to what is available he could order some in for you. I have had several vendars pitch grass pellets as a mulch for grass seed. The only problem is that it is expensive. To mulch about 30 sq feet cost is close to $10. The other problem that I see is that there are issues with ferilization. Grass is brutal on the requirements of nitrogen. That is why all the home-owning Slashdotters that want a nice lawn are always fertilizing. In a commercial setting, you had better believe that people are going to fertilize -- the more nitrogen that is applied to the ground the faster the grass will grow (to a point). And fertilizer for grass, that is quality, anyway, is not cheap. You could always through some ammonia sulfate (21-0-0) or urea down but you run the risk of burning the hell out of it in the middle of the summer. So that means that you are either playing with a foliar feeder, which doesn't promote deep root growth, or your using CDU, IBDU, or MethEX fertilizer. The USDA recommends as the minium on turf 3.5 lbs/1,000/per year. You could let it go with out fertilizing, but then you run the risk of a diminishing return on the yield/sq foot. The the other problem is that he was talking about a periannial grasses. Thats a nice idea. But the bigger problem is that even though grasses are periannials, there are bigger problems. If you go with a fescue or a rye grass they end up thinning out over time. A kentucky blue has the ability to creap, but the fertilizer requirement is very high. He meantioned using an orchard grass. Orchard grasses are aggressive in nature, but they are a clumping grass. Grasses will reseed if you let them, but then again, it requires fertilizer in order to get the grass to preform well and to germinate the seed. You also have major problems with soil pH. In most areas the soil is either too acidic or way to alkaline. Very few areas of the country have soil that is nice to grass. So I guess the point of this rant is that the article doesn't explore the horticultural issues. Perhaps I am just skeptical, but grass is not an easy, forget about it for 70 days solution. Turf grass or for that matter, fields of grass does not accure naturally in nature. If it is unmaintained it will go wild in a matter of years -- if you want to market Weed Pellets, then it will be low maintance. The cost of having turf fields is enourmous. That is why turf sod (the American meaning of sod) is so expensive.
At my University there is a strict honor code. Every Winter semester students must be endorsed, meaning that they have met with an advisor and have committed to abide by the rules of the honor code. There are only about 70 people that can do the endorsements on campus. A failure to get endorsed means that you are no longer a student and you are blocked from registering. For some of my volunteer work, I am the clerk for one of these advisors. One of the things the advisor asked me to do was to enter in endorsements into the computer. We were given a six digit number to sign in, with a ten digit, alpha-numeric, randomly assigned password. The letter with the password did not come with the sign in. Further, the letter stated that the University doesn't even know the password, so it should be kept safe. Advisors were asked to keep the password in strict confidence, and not to disclose them to anyone, under any circumstances. To top it off, the University set it so that there was a narrow time period for the endorsements to be done. So assuming that you managed to find out the user name for you advisor, you would have to brute force the password within time.
Needless to say, I would argue, at least at my school, they are not careless. In fact, I would argue that they are erring on the side that someone will try to hack the system. But the school also takes computer issues seriously. The computer use policy is very strict, and makes it clear that abuse of a computer, on or off campus is grounds for getting expelled.
Or a cool way to compromise a computer system. On an unmanaged network, you could cause some serious trouble. If you were to put a sniffer on it, and then forward all the packets to a remote computer, you could have some real fun. Or you could use it to remotely connect to a network. The worst part about it is that it could be hard to detect. Imagine the chance of it being caught unless someone wanted to plug a device in; unless there was a really astute and annoyed system admin -- but then again, he would probably be running a managed network and would detect the compromise. However, it isn't all that powerful, so it is limited in the scope of the damage. But it still could allow for someone to put a VPN on a network.
LOL! Actually, one of the funniest things that I saw was this paranoid freak at work. He has three or four different anti-spyware programs and just as many privacy programs. He didn't trust anyone. Except, his password was "2222" -- for everything. I was fixing his computer and asked him what his password was, and it was "2222." Email problems, password, "2222". Anyhow, I found it interesting that he had gone through great lengths to encyrpt all his data, and used the password of "2222." I would love to have seen how fast the DNA machine could crack this one.
Secret Service Agent 1: "We'll, let's hope we get this back in..."
Secret Service Agent 2: "DAMN! It was like 0.00041 seconds!"
Would you give credit to your arch-enemy? I mean, look at the situation here. Groklaw is anti-SCO. And putting links to Groklaw and TuxRocks, might give attention where they don't want it -- to the enemy. What SCO wants is to look good in their own light, not in the shadows cast by Groklaw or TuxRocks. Even though it is unethical, the people who are going to care are those that read Groklaw or TuxRocks; the pro-SCO people are going to go to a pro-SCO place, and are probably not going to read anti-SCO writings. They are not trying to win over the anti-SCO group, they are trying to convince the small minority that is buying their claims that SCO still has a case. Whenever we see SCO doing something that makes us go, "What the @#$!," just remeber what their goal is, and what our goals are. It is a whole different world-view than what the FOSS community embraces.
The only icon that I need is #
Maybe > but only temporarily until I get to #
Heck, what if our dot are confused with their porn? We might offend them. Or worse yet, what if our bitmaps are actually comments made in poor taste about their mom? I mean, you could start a galatic war over something like this.
Forgive me for asking, but why on earth does the article make reference to Marxian thought? His economic theories have been largely disproved, much less should they be relied on as a source of authority in a capitalistic society. Even if you are a socialist, there are far more authoritative and modern socialist thinkers which can be quoted. Besides, Marx argued for the voilent overthrow of capitalism. I had trouble digesting the argument that by not allowing people to play video games, they might lose their identity.
What is more interesting is that IBM, according to the link you provided, is developing a GPL'ed version of TCPA for Linux. I think that is an important thing to note. Further, anyone that has said anything on Trusted Computing ought to take a look at that link. It dispells some myths and misconceptions about Trust Computing. After reading it, I am not too worried. The one thing that is common to the article is that it is to protect data, not DRM'ed stuff, against external hardware attack. In otherwords, the attitude of the article is that it is to protect you from some punk using software to get to your data like virii and trojans. IBM flattly denies that trusted computing is an attempt to implement DRM -- they even say that the scheme is poorly executed for use as a DRM. You will also notice the tone of the CNet article -- it said nothing about trusted OS's. Besides, you can bet that there would be issues with anti-trust concerns it trusted computer limited OS accessability.
The whole purpouse was to gather evidence and details of the botnets. If you don't understand how the bots work, then it is hard to find how to defend against them. By knowing the targets, the goals and how they communicate you can both detect them on a network, and defend against them (for example, if you administer a corparate network, having the signitures of a bot with Snort can be quite useful in intercepting bot traffic). The other interesting thing was that the bot nets use IRC channels to communicate. If they didn't do this little project, then the communcation methods wouldn't be understood. The value of having this information is far more useful than deleting the bot off a computer. Saying that you should delete them is akin to telling anti-virus firms that they should merely delete the virii and not study them at all.
Agreed. I don't care if you are a script kiddie; if you get a botnet that big, then you command my respect -- not because of technical skills, but the amount of computing capital that you have, and the power that you can wield on the internet with it. Now, that is not to say that you may know how to use it, but you could still sell that bot net to someone else.
But you have just answered the question -- less than 50% is still not most. Also, you will notice the parent argued, or at least insinuated that 99% of people have done illegal drugs.
The war on drugs analogy doesnt work as it essentially targets 99% of the population at one time or the other.
While I don't mean to be a prick, I have to disagree with you on the issue of most people having done drugs. Out of my peers, none of us have done illegal drugs once. Now, I am in a religiously conservative area, but to say that most is flat wrong. It may be according to your world view, but for most I would say they haven't.
However, I agree with you on the scope of the legislation. Since there is a smaller group of people doing spamming than doing drugs, it does help. But you also have to take into account the fact that drug groups are specifically designed, organized and have become effective at avoiding law enforcment. Spammers on the other hand, are a whole lot easier to catch -- there are ways to detect where the spam is comming from and gather evidence is easier (there is only a limited way that spam can get into a country, where there are thousands of ways that drugs can find their way into a country). But to compare the two is like comparing apples and organges.
Yeah the question of why is now more entertaining -- he could have pitched this as an "Integrated War-driving solution." It would be kinda of interesting to read the posts if it was pitched that way instead of an in-console multimedia center. But then again, most people don't think of using a Mac as the preferred way to do war-driving.
What I am interested in finding out is how the computer fairs after a nice hot summer. An August component causulty report would be kind of interesting. Well I understand that the Mac mini does have too much in terms of fans, that car does have a black interior. I can only imagine what would happen if you tried to turn it on when the car tempetures reach 140F in the sun. But I guess if he is far enough north, he shouldn't have too many problems...maybe an Idaho or Minnesota summer.
I just bought myself an HP with a 3200+ AMD64, and all I can say is wow! I love the thing. It is a little bit on the heavy side, and the fan runs (although not a loud fan) all the time. But the performance is mind blowing. I am so happy with the purchase. At school we have dual P4 2.8's that we use for programming, and this thing runs the programs on campus just as fast if not faster. I am a little bummed about not waiting for the Turion, but frankly, I am extremely happy, and would recommend an AMD64 notebook to anyone. I looked for a while and when the price was right, I jumped on it. Anyhow, like I said, if your thinking about an 64 laptop go for it. You won't be disappointed with the performance (well, except for the hard disk lag).
Normally I don't care to respond to AC's but here you go: "...they normally work by emulating services and operating systems. Attacker activity is limited to the level of emulation by the honeypot. For example, an emulated FTP service listening on port 21 may just emulate a FTP login, or it may support a variety of additional FTP commands. The advantages of a low-interaction honeypot is their simplicity. These honeypots tend to be easier to deploy and maintain, with minimal risk. Usually they involve installing software, selecting the operating systems and services you want to emulate and monitor, and letting the honeypot go from there. This plug and play approach makes deploying them very easy for most organizations...Some honeypots, such as Honeyd, can not only emulate services, but emulate actual operating systems. In other words, Honeyd can appear to the attacker to be a Cisco router, WinXP webserver, or Linux DNS server. There are several advantages to emulating different operating systems. First, the honeypot can better blend in with existing networks if the honeypot has the same appearance and behavior of production systems. Second, you can target specific attackers by providing systems and services they often target, or systems and services you want to learn about...When used for production purposes, honeypots are protecting an organization. This would include preventing, detecting, or helping organizations respond to an attack."s .h tml
http://www.tracking-hackers.com/papers/honeypot
This is what I meant. In terms of the coherent thought, what I was asking is if I could deploy a honeypot and then have hackers try to hack the system. If you let them in on the honeypot does that count as being hacked? If the hacker thinks that they got in, but really only got into a fake system that was emulated, then does that count as not being hacked, since the root system was not compromised.
Are honeypots legal? I mean if I put up a honey pot and the root system isn't compromised, do I win?
However, this presents an interesting attitude -- those with degrees think they are better and those with out degrees think that they are also as high. Usually those with out a degree are the ones that malaign education. Where I work, there is an interesting relationship. I work as Garden Center Manager, while pursuing my degree in Information Systems. All of my knowledge in plants is that which I have learned on my own and through on the job experience. My knowledge is practical in the area of horticulture. My problem is that I don't have a sufficent framework to understand how some of the products work. Sometimes the formally educated comes to me to ask questions, and sometimes I go to them to ask them questions. From my experience of having learned how to program on my own, and drawing on the experience of having worked with plants, I can see the value an education. I have become a much better programmer learning in a formal structure. The value that I can see is that formal education teaches people how to think the same way and why things are done in a certain way.
I guess the point here is that the formal and informal learning all have value. It seems like those who haven't had a formal education have an inferiority complex, and those who have had a formal education have a superiority complex. A degree in whatever, while merely a piece of paper represents that the person has done something, and learned how to learn. I know that the lessons that I have learned in college are far beyond the classes I have taken. And if I would not trade what I have learned for anything. Sure it would be nice to make a ton of money right now, and to enjoy the perks, the evolution of my character, personality, and knowledge is worth too much to me. When I graduate, it is going to be worth far more than a piece of paper: it will represent a period of my life where I have grown up a whole lot.
Another question that needs to be asked is what relation does this spyware have with others? From my experience, if you get one piece of spyware you spend the next two weeks cleaning off various spyware programs. I have come to my own conclusion that spyware likes to invite friends onto your computer. Does anyone know of a database that tracks the relationships between spyware?
To keep my laptop clean from spyware I have installed M$ Virtual Machine on my computer. That way when I want to run something that might be suspect, I just launch a virtual machine of Windows XP, and go. Of course I end up with a virtual machine that I end up blowing away from time to time, but at least I don't have to worry about infecting the host machine.
Hey, I will be the first one to say that drug prices are insane. I have one prescription that I don't take because it costs too much -- I only take it when I have too. But if a drug company has the fear of immenient domain, what is going to keep a drug company innovating and researching? The idea of patents is to protect the innovator's investment and to encourage innovation. If I were a drug company, I would threaten to close shop. The drug companies may enjoy high profits, but the R&D costs are insane too.
I think that your comments sum up the argument between those who are conservative and those who are liberal. (Since I am a conservative who expresses his opinion, I fully expect to be moderated down for this. Slashdot's moderation system does a good job of political censorship for conservative thought.) The main disagreement is over the power of words and images. I maintain that words and pictures have power over the viewers (for example, there is evidence that pornographic material is more addictive than cocaine -- exposure to pornography causes a release of endorphines, and a chemcial dependency on natural endorphines happens). If people are exposed to certain things, then their tendency to do those things increases. If you are trying to prevent violence, then limit the exposure of violence. The argument that you can simply change the channel works to a point. It may work for adults who know what they want to watch and not watch. But when teenagers who are away from their parents are exposed to salacious and violent material, that is a different story. So then the parents can opt not to have a TV or try to controll their children better. There is no way to effective turn off technology for you unless you move to a third world country or become Amish. With the FCC regulating indecency, it is preventing a minority of people (i.e. Hollywood) from inposing indecency on the majority that disagree (most parents don't want their children exposed to violent, pornographic material). Which, by the way is not political censorship. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has the right to prevent indecent material from being shown, and even created the "Community Standards," test. The FCC regulates publicly owned airwaves. That is the reason they can regulate the content. People who want to express indecent ideas, topics and presentations should adopt a forum that is not regulated. Like Howard Stern did. Until the public opinion shifts to where it does not want the FCC to regulate indecency, then people should play by the rules. The broadcasters know the rules. They should abide by the rules, even though they think they are stupid.
It biols down to this: should government take a role in enforcing the moral attitude of the majority on publicly owned airwaves? Or should the government have no say in the moral attitudes on publicly owned airwaves? Since I think they should, I estimate ten minutes before I modded down to "overrated," or "flamebait," or "troll".
What, did someone just say "red herring?" Oooh, ooh, how about an "over simplification?" Maybe, a "hasty generalization?"
In all seriousiness, how does comparing a nuclear reactor indictant relate to the FCC? The two agencies, as pointed out by the parent are two different agencies, and the scope of inpact is significantly different.
And, it is a poorly written and present article. Where are the numbers? When there is a nuclear accident, the reglatory commision only fines one organization. But when there is a indecent broadcast, the FCC fines each station broadcasting individually. And who bears the cost of the fine? In the case of a nuclear reactor, which is providing power, the customers are the ones that end up paying the burden of the fine. So while, you might be able to kill an elderly person in a nursing home, and pay less than an indecency fine, the article does not point out that the fact that you run the severe risk of crinimal charges (anywhere from criminal neglence to manslaughter or straight-up murder). In a nuclear accident, you also run the risk of jail time, depending on the nature of the accident. My personal freedom is worth a whole lot more than several million.
And then you look at the source. The Rolling Stones is one that apposes the Bush administration and any form of indecency censorship. But I guess that means that I may be guilty of a "personal attack."
Very true.
However, it is something that I have seen before. My dad has two hard drive wind chimes in his backyard -- both made of between five and seven platters. It is actually a pretty funny sounding wind chime. You get clanks and good ringing from time to time.