Some bit about the differences between Science Fiction and Fantasy. His take, no difference.
Except in Science Fiction you have access to a lot more power.
It ends in a tavern (where else) with two guys. "Look, mutants". "Naw, they're trolls." "Mutants!" "Trolls!" "Well, maybe they're mutant trolls?" "I'll buy that." Waitress: "You guys are looking in the mirror again!"
I'm wandering over a blasted landscape (radiation? wild magic?) with my pointy-eared companion (Vulcan? Elf?) looking for an artifact (alien? magic?) to defeat the mindless minions (robotic? zombie?) of the evil Lord Antagonist?
In most of the stories, there isn't any difference. Too many of the plot devices (that's all they are) can be switched between genres.
The only differences are that in good Science Fiction, you don't have to explain the plot devices because people will understand them based off of their current knowledge.
Suppose that it was possible to deduct money and pay the artist for whatever you were looking at.
Would art get better or worse?
Given the lowest common denominator, would we see a lot more porn being presented as "art". It would generate the most payments for the "artist".
What about advertising? If they could measure how long your looked at an ad, what changes would take place on those ads?
Would the market eventually slide into porn? If not, why not? What effect would there be on people if every billboard had 20' tall graphic depictions of sex acts? What about commercials on TV? If the billboards
That is what Science Fiction is about (no, not the porn). Taking a simple idea and expanding that into how it affects society and the individual.
Particularly when it comes to weaknesses in their security procedures.:)
www.eviloverlord.com Rule #9. I will not include a self-destruct mechanism unless absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, it will not be a large red button labelled "Danger: Do Not Push". The big red button marked "Do Not Push" will instead trigger a spray of bullets on anyone stupid enough to disregard it. Similarly, the ON/OFF switch will not clearly be labelled as such.
Rule #65. If I must have computer systems with publically available terminals, the maps they display of my complex will have a room clearly marked as the Main Control Room. That room will be the Execution Chamber. The actual main control room will be marked as Sewage Overflow Containment.
Rule #66. My security keypad will actually be a fingerprint scanner. Anyone who watches someone press a sequence of buttons or dusts the pad for fingerprints then subsequently tries to enter by repeating that sequence will trigger the alarm system.
Go ahead. Bruce said his door was unlocked. Open it.
Like the one that countered Blaster (but had it's own problems)?
If you're going to have your computer on campus network, you'll be probed for vulnerabilities and patched if those are found. Any lost data is your problem because you did not patch your computer.
This would be a very easy thing if the new computers were assigned addresses via DHCP. A new MAC address would trigger a scan of that computer. That way, not too much bandwidth would be used.
It would not be a worm, exactly. It would not replicate itself to the other machines.
This would also get around the problem of not being able to patch a computer unless it logged into your network or something (or had some other reason why updates would not be accepted).
If there isn't an override on that, there's going to be problems with idiot users who can't figure out why they can't open something or someone else can't open something they sent them.
I've had enough problems with teaching people how to send email to more than one person.
Now they'll be able to block copying and printing, too? How many "my printer is broken" calls are we going to see that turn out to be "document is locked for printing"?
Not to mention "Can you get my document off of the backup? I set it to delete after 1 week by mistake and I really need it right now because the CEO is having a meeting in 5 minutes and he wants to present it to the BOD".
He understands basic logic (look, every one else's machine is doing what you're trying to do and doing it fine so the problem must be in your machine) even if he doesn't understand everything about computers.
But his boss is an idiot that buys every damn toy on the market and expect me to make it work just like the sales person said it would.
And my boss keeps giving me raises because I keep his boss off of his back.
The BSA can get a search warrant and even break down your doors. But I have not heard of such actions, ever.
Instead the BSA usually uses the agreement you signed with Microsoft for your site license as a legal authorization to demand you perform an audit and to check your results themselves.
If you have not signed an agreement for any site licenses that can be audited, then the only ways they're getting on your property is if you let them in or they get a court order to come in.
Many years ago a small cult decided that the insect hive structure was the best way to live.
Fast forward to today. In secret, he Hive has grown to 50,000 people. Mostly workers who are kept docile via pheromones and treated food. Others are leaders who interact with the regular humans and scientists bred for their oversized brains.
The hive mentality has been completely adopted by all of the members. Each one would die for the Hive.
Their devotion has resulted in advances in weapons and material technologies.
Their dead are dropped into underground food vats where they are stewed and eaten by the rest of the Hive.
They use pro-creative stumps (female bodies with the arms, legs and head removed) to bread even more Hive members. They also practice continual orgies for breeding.
So, you say that Mac's are just as easy to infect, but no one has done it because the people writing the viruses aren't very good programmers.
I even gave you the basics for how to deploy a multi-platform virus.
Now you're claiming that those virus writers aren't interested in getting that last 5 - 10% infection rate.
Well, I can see that you know exactly what motivates all those virus writers. Of course no virus writer would be motivated by the infamy of being the first to deploy a sobig type virus that hit Windows and Macs.
You've gone from making claims about the technology to making claims about the personalities of the virus writers.
So, it isn't about the technology, it's about their personalities. Right. Sure. You betcha.
The virus will randomly send one of the executables to the email addresses it finds.
Simply vary the probability based upon the system that it is on. So if it is spreading from a Windows box, 90% of the emails will have the Windows version of the virus.
If it is spreading from a Mac, 90% will have the Mac version.
So, one Mac person gets infected and he spreads that infection to all of his Mac buddies who spread it to their Mac buddies.
Each time a machine is infected, it downloads both the executables and the smtp app from the machine that infected it. So all new infections can spread to Windows and Macs.
The concept is very simple.
And, accourding to you, the execution should be very simple.
Simply put together a virus / worm that will exploit Windows and Macs.
It isn't like it is particularly difficult to write a virus for Windows. Lots and lots and lots of other people have done so.
And you claim that Macs aren't any more secure.
So why aren't there a few dozen viruses that exploit holes in both systems? If it finds itself on a Windows box, it runs one thing. If it finds itself on a Mac, it does a different thing.
That way it would be sure to spread through the Windows boxes so it could also get the Mac users.
Basically, your post boils down to "things would be different if things were different". Maybe they would be. Maybe they wouldn't be. There's no way to test that.
All that can be said is that there aren't dozens of multi-platform viruses (despite claims that Macs and Linux boxes would be targetted if they had more market share).
Nor are Apache servers cracked with the same frequency as IIS boxes, despite Apache being deployed 3x more than IIS.
Not that these facts disprove your claims. But you have nothing that does support your claims other than your assertion that "things would be different if things were different".
B becomes infected. The virus sends mail from B's machine to C that appears to be from A.
That message is checked for viruses.
The virus is found. The virus is removed.
Simple and proven effective in a real world environment (the office I work at).
Now, if I were to go back and grab all of those infected messages and then run them through SpamAssassin's learning function as spam, then I would deserve whatever I got. That is because I would have knowingly polluted my SpamAssassin system with non-spam.
The spam filtering system is not the same as the anti-virus system. Even though they run on the same box.
The suspected spam messages are not handled in the same fashion as the suspected virus messages. Even though they are handled on the same box.
Simply adding random text to a message is not enough to get it past SpamAssassin.
I run SpamAssassin, I know that it catches that stuff.
The reason it does catch it is because it used a WEIGHTED system for classification. If the message has the characteristics of spam, but has random words in it, it will still be considered spam UNLESS those random words have been used previously in ham messages that it has learned.
Now, the odds of the spammer hitting upon words that my version of SpamAssassin has learned as ham are very slim.
And if he did manage it, those same words would most likely not be in someone else's ham list.
So spam that can get through to me will not get through to 90% of the other SpamAssassin users.
I'm running SpamAssassin at work and it is catching over 1,000 spam messages for every false positive or false negative that it lets through. Despite the spammers including random words and random text and all of their other tricks.
You got it. They're complaining because there's no hype they can dish out that will sell you more effectively than your friend who said that it sucked.
Now your friend can instantly convey his review to all of his other friends. No more waiting around the water cooler Monday morning to complain about the bad movie you saw and that everyone else saw opening weekend.
The easy way for IBM to prove this to a judge is to hand the judge a copy of the statement from Caldera releasing the code under the BSD license.
Anyone can show two bits of near identical code and claim that one was copied from the other.
All IBM has to do is show that the code was legitimately included.
SCO has to show that it was not legitimately included.
Therefore: SCO has to show that only SCO has rights to that code.
This will be a huge problem for SCO to do. Take the example of the two bits on those photographs. IBM can show that that code was released already. SCO will have a problem showing that they own rights to that code and that all other examples of it in the wild are illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
In the back of Dragon Magazine.
Some bit about the differences between Science Fiction and Fantasy. His take, no difference.
Except in Science Fiction you have access to a lot more power.
It ends in a tavern (where else) with two guys.
"Look, mutants".
"Naw, they're trolls."
"Mutants!"
"Trolls!"
"Well, maybe they're mutant trolls?"
"I'll buy that."
Waitress: "You guys are looking in the mirror again!"
I'm wandering over a blasted landscape (radiation? wild magic?) with my pointy-eared companion (Vulcan? Elf?) looking for an artifact (alien? magic?) to defeat the mindless minions (robotic? zombie?) of the evil Lord Antagonist?
In most of the stories, there isn't any difference. Too many of the plot devices (that's all they are) can be switched between genres.
The only differences are that in good Science Fiction, you don't have to explain the plot devices because people will understand them based off of their current knowledge.
What happens if China establishes the first moonbase?
They have stated that they're pushing for it.
Suppose that it was possible to deduct money and pay the artist for whatever you were looking at.
Would art get better or worse?
Given the lowest common denominator, would we see a lot more porn being presented as "art". It would generate the most payments for the "artist".
What about advertising? If they could measure how long your looked at an ad, what changes would take place on those ads?
Would the market eventually slide into porn? If not, why not? What effect would there be on people if every billboard had 20' tall graphic depictions of sex acts? What about commercials on TV? If the billboards
That is what Science Fiction is about (no, not the porn). Taking a simple idea and expanding that into how it affects society and the individual.
What is "The Graduate"?
I'll take "Obscure Movie Scenes" for $200, Alex.
Copyright is fine. Just as long as it will expire in a reasonable amount of time (20 years).
Patents are okay, too. As long as they aren't for software or "business methods".
Particularly when it comes to weaknesses in their security procedures. :)
www.eviloverlord.com
Rule #9. I will not include a self-destruct mechanism unless absolutely necessary. If it is necessary, it will not be a large red button labelled "Danger: Do Not Push". The big red button marked "Do Not Push" will instead trigger a spray of bullets on anyone stupid enough to disregard it. Similarly, the ON/OFF switch will not clearly be labelled as such.
Rule #65. If I must have computer systems with publically available terminals, the maps they display of my complex will have a room clearly marked as the Main Control Room. That room will be the Execution Chamber. The actual main control room will be marked as Sewage Overflow Containment.
Rule #66. My security keypad will actually be a fingerprint scanner. Anyone who watches someone press a sequence of buttons or dusts the pad for fingerprints then subsequently tries to enter by repeating that sequence will trigger the alarm system.
Go ahead. Bruce said his door was unlocked. Open it.
A new MAC address shows up, requesting an IP address, it gets the address and is immediately scanned.
If it needs the patch, it is downloaded from another server on that LAN to save bandwidth like you said.
That way the scans are contained to machines that are requesting access to your network. You want access, you agree to be scanned.
This will also reduce the bandwidth used on the LAN by only scanning machines as they connect.
I would not have a problem with any college doing this. Provided that their application cleaned up after itself completely.
Like the one that countered Blaster (but had it's own problems)?
If you're going to have your computer on campus network, you'll be probed for vulnerabilities and patched if those are found. Any lost data is your problem because you did not patch your computer.
This would be a very easy thing if the new computers were assigned addresses via DHCP. A new MAC address would trigger a scan of that computer. That way, not too much bandwidth would be used.
It would not be a worm, exactly. It would not replicate itself to the other machines.
This would also get around the problem of not being able to patch a computer unless it logged into your network or something (or had some other reason why updates would not be accepted).
If there isn't an override on that, there's going to be problems with idiot users who can't figure out why they can't open something or someone else can't open something they sent them.
I've had enough problems with teaching people how to send email to more than one person.
Now they'll be able to block copying and printing, too? How many "my printer is broken" calls are we going to see that turn out to be "document is locked for printing"?
Not to mention "Can you get my document off of the backup? I set it to delete after 1 week by mistake and I really need it right now because the CEO is having a meeting in 5 minutes and he wants to present it to the BOD".
He understands basic logic (look, every one else's machine is doing what you're trying to do and doing it fine so the problem must be in your machine) even if he doesn't understand everything about computers.
But his boss is an idiot that buys every damn toy on the market and expect me to make it work just like the sales person said it would.
And my boss keeps giving me raises because I keep his boss off of his back.
The BSA can get a search warrant and even break down your doors. But I have not heard of such actions, ever.
Instead the BSA usually uses the agreement you signed with Microsoft for your site license as a legal authorization to demand you perform an audit and to check your results themselves.
If you have not signed an agreement for any site licenses that can be audited, then the only ways they're getting on your property is if you let them in or they get a court order to come in.
We're talking some heavy crunching power.
To have any useful application, those codes would have to be linked to transactions and locations.
Imagine trying to update the transactions and locations of just every can of Coke sold every day.
Manufactured
Shipped from the manufacturing plant
Received at the warehouse
Shipped to the store
Sold to the customer
The only time I see utilization above 10% is when I'm backing up systems across the wire.
This might be good for SAN's. But I'd be looking at iSCSI for that.
We haven't even deployed gigabit Ethernet yet.
I shudder to think of the size of the files that will need that much bandwidth for decent performance.
Many years ago a small cult decided that the insect hive structure was the best way to live.
Fast forward to today. In secret, he Hive has grown to 50,000 people. Mostly workers who are kept docile via pheromones and treated food. Others are leaders who interact with the regular humans and scientists bred for their oversized brains.
The hive mentality has been completely adopted by all of the members. Each one would die for the Hive.
Their devotion has resulted in advances in weapons and material technologies.
Their dead are dropped into underground food vats where they are stewed and eaten by the rest of the Hive.
They use pro-creative stumps (female bodies with the arms, legs and head removed) to bread even more Hive members. They also practice continual orgies for breeding.
So, you say that Mac's are just as easy to infect, but no one has done it because the people writing the viruses aren't very good programmers.
I even gave you the basics for how to deploy a multi-platform virus.
Now you're claiming that those virus writers aren't interested in getting that last 5 - 10% infection rate.
Well, I can see that you know exactly what motivates all those virus writers. Of course no virus writer would be motivated by the infamy of being the first to deploy a sobig type virus that hit Windows and Macs.
You've gone from making claims about the technology to making claims about the personalities of the virus writers.
So, it isn't about the technology, it's about their personalities. Right. Sure. You betcha.
Whatever it takes for you to be right, eh?
That will change your view on standard relationships.
Why doesn't anyone on Star Trek run into something like that? I'm not talking Borg, either.
Have two executables.
The virus will randomly send one of the executables to the email addresses it finds.
Simply vary the probability based upon the system that it is on. So if it is spreading from a Windows box, 90% of the emails will have the Windows version of the virus.
If it is spreading from a Mac, 90% will have the Mac version.
So, one Mac person gets infected and he spreads that infection to all of his Mac buddies who spread it to their Mac buddies.
Each time a machine is infected, it downloads both the executables and the smtp app from the machine that infected it. So all new infections can spread to Windows and Macs.
The concept is very simple.
And, accourding to you, the execution should be very simple.
Yet it just does not seem to be happening.
Simply put together a virus / worm that will exploit Windows and Macs.
It isn't like it is particularly difficult to write a virus for Windows. Lots and lots and lots of other people have done so.
And you claim that Macs aren't any more secure.
So why aren't there a few dozen viruses that exploit holes in both systems? If it finds itself on a Windows box, it runs one thing. If it finds itself on a Mac, it does a different thing.
That way it would be sure to spread through the Windows boxes so it could also get the Mac users.
Basically, your post boils down to "things would be different if things were different". Maybe they would be. Maybe they wouldn't be. There's no way to test that.
All that can be said is that there aren't dozens of multi-platform viruses (despite claims that Macs and Linux boxes would be targetted if they had more market share).
Nor are Apache servers cracked with the same frequency as IIS boxes, despite Apache being deployed 3x more than IIS.
Not that these facts disprove your claims. But you have nothing that does support your claims other than your assertion that "things would be different if things were different".
The problem is that that you'll be running the virus junk through the spam system and polluting your corpus.
If that's what you want to do, then you'll get what you deserve.
Person A is not an employee of my company.
Person B is not an employee of my company.
Person C is an employee of my company.
A sends mail to B.
B sends mail to A.
B sends mail to C.
C sends mail to B.
B becomes infected.
The virus sends mail from B's machine to C that appears to be from A.
That message is checked for viruses.
The virus is found.
The virus is removed.
Simple and proven effective in a real world environment (the office I work at).
Now, if I were to go back and grab all of those infected messages and then run them through SpamAssassin's learning function as spam, then I would deserve whatever I got. That is because I would have knowingly polluted my SpamAssassin system with non-spam.
The spam filtering system is not the same as the anti-virus system. Even though they run on the same box.
The suspected spam messages are not handled in the same fashion as the suspected virus messages. Even though they are handled on the same box.
Spam is not a virus.
A virus is not spam.
Do not confuse the two.
At work, the mail is scanned for viruses first, then it is handed off for classification as ham or spam.
Anyone who bothers to send a virus through a spam filter deserves whatever he gets.
Simply adding random text to a message is not enough to get it past SpamAssassin.
I run SpamAssassin, I know that it catches that stuff.
The reason it does catch it is because it used a WEIGHTED system for classification. If the message has the characteristics of spam, but has random words in it, it will still be considered spam UNLESS those random words have been used previously in ham messages that it has learned.
Now, the odds of the spammer hitting upon words that my version of SpamAssassin has learned as ham are very slim.
And if he did manage it, those same words would most likely not be in someone else's ham list.
So spam that can get through to me will not get through to 90% of the other SpamAssassin users.
I'm running SpamAssassin at work and it is catching over 1,000 spam messages for every false positive or false negative that it lets through. Despite the spammers including random words and random text and all of their other tricks.
Unless you want the blaster worm on your box, you've already been compromised.
I like the idea of having the worm wait for probes from infected boxes and then jumping to them and cleaning them and waiting for more probes.
Although it would be nice if it tossed up a dialog box saying what it did and how to remove it.
You got it. They're complaining because there's no hype they can dish out that will sell you more effectively than your friend who said that it sucked.
Now your friend can instantly convey his review to all of his other friends. No more waiting around the water cooler Monday morning to complain about the bad movie you saw and that everyone else saw opening weekend.
The easy way for IBM to prove this to a judge is to hand the judge a copy of the statement from Caldera releasing the code under the BSD license.
Anyone can show two bits of near identical code and claim that one was copied from the other.
All IBM has to do is show that the code was legitimately included.
SCO has to show that it was not legitimately included.
Therefore: SCO has to show that only SCO has rights to that code.
This will be a huge problem for SCO to do. Take the example of the two bits on those photographs. IBM can show that that code was released already. SCO will have a problem showing that they own rights to that code and that all other examples of it in the wild are illegal.