I love the one from Cadence that required a license key which in turn ties into a specific MAC address before it'll start up... hope the NIC doesn't die
You do know about macchanger, don't you? Or "ip link address..."
1) It's hard to get a good estimate of shipping costs. Dropping of my packages at FedEx/Kinkos is *always* more than what I found at FedEx's site
Thats because it costs more to ship the same item if you fill in the forms and pay at the FedEx/Kinkos location. You need to do the web thing and print out a paid shipping label that you attach to your package. Nothing to pay when you get to your dropoff location.
2) Unexpected weight and cost: The last thing I want is to be caught holding the bag for shipping charges in excess of what I thought they would be
Do your homework. Before you list an item, weigh the item, with the box and packing. Once you have the weight and size, you can put this into the auction, with a hidden adder for handling. eBay shows the buyer the total expected shipping cost.
I always hated leaving feedback because the sellers made you leave feedback first. This led to things occurring like, a seller not having items to ship and having to either refund you, or in many cases, send you a similar item without any notification.
I simply don't leave feedback as a buyer until I have the item in my hand and it is OK. Now, I have not made too many transactions (probably ~200) and so far, only one went bad (I paid, seller never responded -- paypal gave partial refund). But there is no way that I am going to give feedback as a buyer until I have that item. Perhaps I get less feedbacks on my profile, but that is a risk I can take.
The problem is that there are crooked sellers and crooked buyers out there. The crooked buyers use the threat of negative feedback to leverage additional concessions out of the seller -- perhaps an upgrade, refund of shipping fees, etc.. With this change, the sellers will have no recourse against those crooked buyers.
I think that this change will lead to a less trustworthy marketplace and hence less business for eBay. Is this a case of PHBs who can't see the long term?
One assumes that Yahoo could have raised prices -- to the same level as Real now charges. However, this would incur quite a lot of displeasure amongst users. This deal will undoubtably incur some displeasure, but, some of that will be directed against Real, not Yahoo.
So, Yahoo presumably has a deal under which it will be able to be compensated for the lost revenue (perhaps even the revenue which could have been gained by increasing prices) without the pain of actually putting up prices. THere may be some upfront cash which may help in a battle aginst Microsoft.
The problem is that the net result is less eyeballs on Yahoo's pages. It's those eyeballs that are Yahoo's value. The long term effect of this may be a net reduction in revenue.
it worked when Microsoft bought Hotmail, it's current biggest web service
I think Hotmail shows perfectly what may happen. Hotmail went from being the clear leader to an also-ran. MS was slow to expand the service (1GB from Google while still 2MB at Hotmail) and failed to understand that an email service has to be truly neutral while effectively stopping all SPAM (including unwanted emails from MS).
The editing, the commentary? It's not like there is a single camera fixed on the field. Also the teams are really entertainers and the sport can be considered an improvised performance.
Furthermore, to be copyrighted, a work must be fixed into a "tangible medium." That is not the case for a live broadcast (although it might be for an after-the-fact replay).
If IP addresses held in RAM can be considered "fixed", then a live broadcast can certainly also be considered fixed.
That may be true, but we aren't talking about the distant past. Windows may still have security issues but that doesn't mean that a person can make it reasonably secure:
I don't think that Windows (XP at least) can be made secure today. Yes, people can use it securely, but I don't think it is possible to make it inherently secure. I saw a recent exmple of a machine that got infected while it was configured with a major anti-virus (fully updated) and Windows was set to auto-update. Yes, I suspect that using Firefox, or just not going to those sites would have avoided the problem, but that says nothing about whether the machine is secure or not.
There was a recent article that showed that the performance of anti-virus s/w has got worse over the past year or two. People who think that Windows can be secured are in denial! The basic problem is that it is difficult to run as a limited user. Quickbooks requires administrator rights, I recently came across video capture and editing s/w that requires admin rights (despite Studio running on the same machine perfectly well for limited users). I am sure there are other programs. Yes, I know about "run as", but my claim is that it is difficult.
No, they should be notified of their error immediately and be allowed to correct it. You are wholly wrong here.
So, according to the ACLU, all ballots were unconstitutional until the introduction of computers into voting?
The ACLU has got it wrong here, it's not just a case of one bad versus another bad, it is a case of one system where people who don't notice their mistakes will have their votes disqualified versus a system that is open to tampering on a massive scale. The ACLU (and you) need to develop a sense of perspective.
I'll probably be down-modded for this, but: I'm pissed. I submitted this yesterday and it was rejected within 5 minutes. My writeup was very similar to the accepted submission, including a direct link to the original paper.
Fail2ban is another nice way to deal with these brute force attacks.
You can use fail2ban, but SSH can be protected very nicely with Netfilter/IPTABLES -- just limit the rate of new connections to something like 3 per 3 minutes for each host and this will slow down any dictionary attack to the point that it is very unlikely to be successful.
To figure out what the compromise vector is, it's probably going to be necessary to figure out what the compromised servers have in common -- and how that differs from uncompromised servers. (Keeping in mind that currently-uncompromised servers may have the same vulnerability, and that attackers or their software just may not have gotten to them yet.)
Perhaps this is the end result of all those dictionary attacks against SSH servers that we have seen for the past 2-3 years. Inevitably, some of those attacks will have been successful. Perhaps the successful logins have not ben exploited until now.
Dangerous if you don't have easy physical access to your machine. It is possible to screw up a machine in such a way that a normal user cannot log in, but root can. It is better to:
* Disable password authentication in SSH -- require key-based authentication
Parent is entirely correct. If AT&T were really concerned about bandwidth hogs, then imposing traffic limits is the way to go (and stop lying to their customers about the "unlimited" nature of their Internet service.
I suspect that AT&T thinks that they won't be sued for deliberately violating their "unlimited" contract by people who are swapping files in violation of copyright. But what about people who are using P2P for entirely legal purposes? One of those could sue AT&T if AT&T decided to limit his/her "unlimited" Internet accedd.
Microsoft claims that the decision was made due to 'security concerns'."
So does this meant that IE7 will be available on Win2k? Win2K is still in "extended support" mode until 2010. Extended support means that MS fixes security problems.
or central authority trust networks (a la Verisign et al) eliminate the possibility of man in the middle attacks.
Yes, until the "DSL software" installed on your PC as part of the process of installing a DSL line puts AT&T's certificate (valid until the end of time) into your root certificate store.
You can charge $1 billion for GPL'd software if you want. You can ask people to register. You can also ask them to give you a lap dance or eat a live rodent.
You just can't require them notto give it away to anyone afterwards.
The problem is that this company has (presumably) already distributed a binary (under section 3) and now they must comply with the part of the GPL that require them to give the source to "any third party" (section 3.b), which would seem to be different to "only people with email addresses". However, it is possible that they already complied through sections 3.a
Does anybody think that email is private? It is sent in clear text so I would say that it is as private as a postcard.
I exchange email with my kids using our virtual private server. Email to and from the server is encrypted (smtp-tls and POP3S or all traffic encrypted in a VPN). We also have webmail, but again, this is ONLY available through https. How is this NOT private?
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't the BBC iPlayer (or whatever it is called) use P2P for its content distribution? Will they cut off access for those people who use iPlayer?
The answer is to build a P2P system that behaves like iPlayer.
The problem is that there are crooked sellers and crooked buyers out there. The crooked buyers use the threat of negative feedback to leverage additional concessions out of the seller -- perhaps an upgrade, refund of shipping fees, etc.. With this change, the sellers will have no recourse against those crooked buyers.
I think that this change will lead to a less trustworthy marketplace and hence less business for eBay. Is this a case of PHBs who can't see the long term?
One assumes that Yahoo could have raised prices -- to the same level as Real now charges. However, this would incur quite a lot of displeasure amongst users. This deal will undoubtably incur some displeasure, but, some of that will be directed against Real, not Yahoo.
So, Yahoo presumably has a deal under which it will be able to be compensated for the lost revenue (perhaps even the revenue which could have been gained by increasing prices) without the pain of actually putting up prices. THere may be some upfront cash which may help in a battle aginst Microsoft.
The problem is that the net result is less eyeballs on Yahoo's pages. It's those eyeballs that are Yahoo's value. The long term effect of this may be a net reduction in revenue.
There was a recent article that showed that the performance of anti-virus s/w has got worse over the past year or two. People who think that Windows can be secured are in denial! The basic problem is that it is difficult to run as a limited user. Quickbooks requires administrator rights, I recently came across video capture and editing s/w that requires admin rights (despite Studio running on the same machine perfectly well for limited users). I am sure there are other programs. Yes, I know about "run as", but my claim is that it is difficult.
and those IT guys will have to fix them. Lots of benefit to the economy, I think
The ACLU has got it wrong here, it's not just a case of one bad versus another bad, it is a case of one system where people who don't notice their mistakes will have their votes disqualified versus a system that is open to tampering on a massive scale. The ACLU (and you) need to develop a sense of perspective.
I'll probably be down-modded for this, but: I'm pissed. I submitted this yesterday and it was rejected within 5 minutes. My writeup was very similar to the accepted submission, including a direct link to the original paper.
* Disable password authentication in SSH -- require key-based authentication
But seriously, this is good news! It is always good news (for law-abiding people) when crooks start feeding off each other.
Parent is entirely correct. If AT&T were really concerned about bandwidth hogs, then imposing traffic limits is the way to go (and stop lying to their customers about the "unlimited" nature of their Internet service.
I suspect that AT&T thinks that they won't be sued for deliberately violating their "unlimited" contract by people who are swapping files in violation of copyright. But what about people who are using P2P for entirely legal purposes? One of those could sue AT&T if AT&T decided to limit his/her "unlimited" Internet accedd.