Here's the way my Dad got it, back in WW II: take a coffee pot, put in your grounds, a pinch of salt and an egg. Boil it until done, with the egg to catch the grounds. When the pot's empty, put in more grounds, another pinch of salt, another egg and do it again. Repeat until there's not enough room for another pot, then dump out the grounds and start over. There's not much coffee in the last pot, but it's very strong. Tastes good, I gather, at about 2 AM when you're on a graveyard shift on a cold night. Never tried it myself, but I've always wondered.
GNOME is the more "Mac-like" interface. It uses two task bars, one at the top, and one at the bottom.
Not on my Gnome desktop! One of the first things I did was turn off the top taskbar because I can't see any reason to waste "screen real estate" on it.
Granted, I have a legit copy of Windows 2k Pro (yes, I bought it) which I've reinstalled countless times before...
Why do you keep on reinstalling your OS? Are you doing dumb things that break it, or is it just slowing down with spyware, malware and trojans (Oh my!) until the only thing you can think of is reinstall from scratch? If so, you really should be learning about Linux, because the only time you'll need to reinstall is to upgrade, not to get your system working again.
The fallacy in that article is obvious. The author constructs a script that can cause damage on a Linux system if a h4x0r can get it onto your system and if it gets run and if it has root privileges. He then uses this to "prove" that Linux isn't secure and that we should all stick with Windows, even though the number of known Windows malware programs is probably well over 10,000.
I have a dual-boot system, Win98Se and FC 6. FC's installer tells you it's found your Windows partition and gives you the option to keep it. However, the only way to set it so that Windows is your primary boot is to go into the custom partitioning section. If you just accept the installer's defaults, you get Linux as your primary boot. I hope that FC 7 has the selection of boot order as a separate step, although it's not exactly a show stopper.
Worst case scenario, they could lose a good chunk of their portfolio...
That's only the second worst case. Worst of all, from their POV is having the Supremes declare that software patents in general are invalid, making their entire portfolio worthless.
My point was WP used the word in the correct context, the frustration of looking it up helped you learn something (or at least remember what you had forgotten).
To be fair, they included the definition in the article. After thinking about what they'd written for a moment, I realized that the "polynomials" were representations of binary numbers, and in context, they were just saying that the numbers were prime. I've seen comments here claiming that they aren't, but no explanations, and I'm not the type to be persuaded by assertion. Point me to a good explanation of the difference, one that I can understand if yo want to change my mind.
Actually, I remember when CRC was the latest and greatest thing in error correction. I'd never seen an article that tried to explain what made it work, and decided to check Wikipedia. I'm not a mathematician by any means, just somebody who's been playing with computers (and sometimes getting paid for it) for over 30 years.
If you read the article I cited, you'll see that the "irreducible polynomial" is just the binary representation of a number, and the number it represents is prime. Thus, stating that the seed must be a prime number is much clearer than referring to it as an irreducible polynomial."
* Irreducibility in this case means that the polynomial cannot be divided by any polynomial except itself and 1 with zero remainder.
And how, pray tell, does that differ in any way from being prime? That's what I'm objecting to. If they'd simply said that the polynomials should be prime, no definition would have been needed. Anybody reading that would almost certainly know what prime meant in that context without extra verbiage.
Some of the worst offenders are math articles. As an example, look at their article on Cyclic Redundancy Checks. In it, they refer to the need for the seed to be "irreducible." Checking further in the article, this is just a $64 word that means "prime." If the number needs to be prime, just say so, don't use a word that nobody will understand, followed eventually by an oblique definition that's hard to understand.
I think it's safe to say that in the usual Slashdot tradition, you didn't bother to RTFM before spouting off. The flaw has nothing to do with people accidentally specifying stupid routes, it's h4x0rs using stupid routes to DDOS one or more machines on the route as well as whatever machine they're addressing.
That's why I said that the truth is a defense in Britain. The papers proved they'd printed the truth and the politicians couldn't prove it was defamatory.
I wonder if truth is a defense against slander/libel/defamation in Australia. It isn't in England, which is where the Aussies borrow much of their law from.
Not quite. IANAL, but I did ask one about this not long ago. In America, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that what you said or wrote is true, you're home free. In Britain, the truth is a defense, but not an absolute defense. If you can prove you told the truth but the plaintiff can show that he was harmed by it you can still lose your case. Don't know, however, which way Australia goes.
Instead of just saying the letters, try saying words with them. As an example, try having somebody say the words "ton" and "gun," without their voice and see if you can tell them apart. You can also try "goo" and "zoo."
I doubt this is the first time that's happened, and if so, it's just life imitating art. I've seen that type of thing done on TV several times in the last few years.
I've some hearing loss, and recently took a series of classes on coping with it. Part of it was experimenting with lip reading. Not only do many words look similar, letters formed mostly with the tongue look identical. Look in the mirror, sometime, and say the letters t, c, g and z, and try to tell which one is which. You can't. Now, imagine security droids looking at what the computer thinks somebody is saying and taking it as the literal truth because, as we all know, computers never lie. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Some Linux distros have automatic online updating. Unlike Microsoft, they put out updates as soon as they have them instead of waiting for a monthly cycle. I remember one afternoon my system downloaded about a dozen updates, then, just after the updater finished, it checked again and found four more. If your company is using one of those distros, those 100,000 desktops will patch themselves within a few hours after it becomes available.
All the bot needs to do is find out what the user's SMTP server is and use that. That way it doesn't care which outbound ports are open and which are blocked.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the way my Dad got it, back in WW II: take a coffee pot, put in your grounds, a pinch of salt and an egg. Boil it until done, with the egg to catch the grounds. When the pot's empty, put in more grounds, another pinch of salt, another egg and do it again. Repeat until there's not enough room for another pot, then dump out the grounds and start over. There's not much coffee in the last pot, but it's very strong. Tastes good, I gather, at about 2 AM when you're on a graveyard shift on a cold night. Never tried it myself, but I've always wondered.
Not on my Gnome desktop! One of the first things I did was turn off the top taskbar because I can't see any reason to waste "screen real estate" on it.
Why do you keep on reinstalling your OS? Are you doing dumb things that break it, or is it just slowing down with spyware, malware and trojans (Oh my!) until the only thing you can think of is reinstall from scratch? If so, you really should be learning about Linux, because the only time you'll need to reinstall is to upgrade, not to get your system working again.
The fallacy in that article is obvious. The author constructs a script that can cause damage on a Linux system if a h4x0r can get it onto your system and if it gets run and if it has root privileges. He then uses this to "prove" that Linux isn't secure and that we should all stick with Windows, even though the number of known Windows malware programs is probably well over 10,000.
I have a dual-boot system, Win98Se and FC 6. FC's installer tells you it's found your Windows partition and gives you the option to keep it. However, the only way to set it so that Windows is your primary boot is to go into the custom partitioning section. If you just accept the installer's defaults, you get Linux as your primary boot. I hope that FC 7 has the selection of boot order as a separate step, although it's not exactly a show stopper.
That's only the second worst case. Worst of all, from their POV is having the Supremes declare that software patents in general are invalid, making their entire portfolio worthless.
To be fair, they included the definition in the article. After thinking about what they'd written for a moment, I realized that the "polynomials" were representations of binary numbers, and in context, they were just saying that the numbers were prime. I've seen comments here claiming that they aren't, but no explanations, and I'm not the type to be persuaded by assertion. Point me to a good explanation of the difference, one that I can understand if yo want to change my mind.
Actually, I remember when CRC was the latest and greatest thing in error correction. I'd never seen an article that tried to explain what made it work, and decided to check Wikipedia. I'm not a mathematician by any means, just somebody who's been playing with computers (and sometimes getting paid for it) for over 30 years.
If you read the article I cited, you'll see that the "irreducible polynomial" is just the binary representation of a number, and the number it represents is prime. Thus, stating that the seed must be a prime number is much clearer than referring to it as an irreducible polynomial."
And how, pray tell, does that differ in any way from being prime? That's what I'm objecting to. If they'd simply said that the polynomials should be prime, no definition would have been needed. Anybody reading that would almost certainly know what prime meant in that context without extra verbiage.
Well, yes, it's about a computer algorithm. However, it's based on math and discussed that way.
Some of the worst offenders are math articles. As an example, look at their article on Cyclic Redundancy Checks. In it, they refer to the need for the seed to be "irreducible." Checking further in the article, this is just a $64 word that means "prime." If the number needs to be prime, just say so, don't use a word that nobody will understand, followed eventually by an oblique definition that's hard to understand.
I think it's safe to say that in the usual Slashdot tradition, you didn't bother to RTFM before spouting off. The flaw has nothing to do with people accidentally specifying stupid routes, it's h4x0rs using stupid routes to DDOS one or more machines on the route as well as whatever machine they're addressing.
I hates him, my Precious! Yes, I does. I hates that Binks for ever and ever, my Precious!
There are two answers:
"You, are number 6."
and:
"You are, number 6."
Really? How come the tld on my domain is only two letters. (.us)
The fibers will be woven into ribbons and tied in the manes of ponies. Lots and lots of ponies. OMG, PONIES, you insensitive clods!!!
That's why I said that the truth is a defense in Britain. The papers proved they'd printed the truth and the politicians couldn't prove it was defamatory.
Not quite. IANAL, but I did ask one about this not long ago. In America, the truth is an absolute defense against slander or libel. That is, if you can prove that what you said or wrote is true, you're home free. In Britain, the truth is a defense, but not an absolute defense. If you can prove you told the truth but the plaintiff can show that he was harmed by it you can still lose your case. Don't know, however, which way Australia goes.
Instead of just saying the letters, try saying words with them. As an example, try having somebody say the words "ton" and "gun," without their voice and see if you can tell them apart. You can also try "goo" and "zoo."
I doubt this is the first time that's happened, and if so, it's just life imitating art. I've seen that type of thing done on TV several times in the last few years.
I've some hearing loss, and recently took a series of classes on coping with it. Part of it was experimenting with lip reading. Not only do many words look similar, letters formed mostly with the tongue look identical. Look in the mirror, sometime, and say the letters t, c, g and z, and try to tell which one is which. You can't. Now, imagine security droids looking at what the computer thinks somebody is saying and taking it as the literal truth because, as we all know, computers never lie. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Some Linux distros have automatic online updating. Unlike Microsoft, they put out updates as soon as they have them instead of waiting for a monthly cycle. I remember one afternoon my system downloaded about a dozen updates, then, just after the updater finished, it checked again and found four more. If your company is using one of those distros, those 100,000 desktops will patch themselves within a few hours after it becomes available.
I'm not disagreeing with you. What I'm saying is that blocking outbound port 25 isn't going to stop cleverly-written spambots.
All the bot needs to do is find out what the user's SMTP server is and use that. That way it doesn't care which outbound ports are open and which are blocked.