What you write is simply gobledygook, for the following reason:
No company with half a brain would allow users access to data and systems that they don't need to get their work done. And if a user cannot be trusted with the data and systems they need to get their work done, they should be fired.
I know, however, that many companies ARE stupid enough to do this wrong. And then they have to chase the dragon, as you point out.
But it doesn't matter. Joe hacker brings his laptop pre-configured with every hacking kit available to work, plugs it in, create an IP-over HTTP tunnel right through the web-proxy, bridging the intranet with the Internet and does whatever mischief he wants.
And there is nothing you can EVER do about it, except assume that it will happen and architect your networks accordingly. The most important aspect of corporate network architecture are DOMAINS and SEGMENTATION. Do not allow engineers access to marketing, and vice versa. Even in engineering, create small domains and strongly seperate them. Do it with CABLES and FIREWALLS not with *passwords*.
The common Intranet should *never* contain anything that would cause a scandal if it hit the streets.
Moral of the story? Let the engineers and sysadmins do whatever the hell they like, in their domains - they need to anyway in order to be productive. Running around imaging machines DOES NOT PREVENT the disaster scenario that you are invoking and it makes everyone unhappy and less efficient.
r figuring out a strategy to get the GPL tossed out so they could use other strategies to be able to use the code.
hmmm, I wonder what this whole SCO ordeal is?
Yes. That is my worry. First, by drawing legal parallels (not neccessarily common-sense parallels, you understand) between the viral licensing nature of SCO's UNIX (all your derivitive works are belong to us) and the GPL and then by having a massive court battle where IBM ruthlessly smashes SCO and sets precendents...
The danger? Should SCO succeed in drawing the correct parallels and loosing the case in the right way, the variety of viral licensing and viral copyrights that are important to open-source may be legally nullified. Kaboom! The GPL is smashed like so many rotten eggs...
Spread this meme - it is important to get this dangerous scenario into the minds of the people who can do something about it.
That there is a strange parallel forming between the ways that certain people are talking about the GPL and the SCO / Unix licensing issue?
I think it is just possible that statements by Gates such as "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux.", should be a clue to what SCO is planning (e.g. The way UNIX licensing works, if you license any UNIX, you have to license SCO UNIX.)
Perhaps the true purpose (revealed) behind the SCO fiasco is to lose in court. But first, they must create a strong set of viral licensing parallels so that, by loosing the lawsuit, they can set precedents that will damage or destroy the GPL.
Do not underestimate the richest man on earth, or his ability to be clever, manipulative and use people's own passions to defeat them...
Err.. no.. I think it means that only 5% of us either work on the kernel or, alternatively, are stupid enough to patch our kernel everytime a new patch is released...
"Randomly drop packets when incoming TCP profile matches MS Windows"
-- Seriously, I worked at Sun back in the days of Sun/MS warfare over Java and we were able to prove that Exchange servers would randomly drop emails going to or coming from sun.com... That was some bizarre shite...
I've been trying for MONTHS to get people interested in the C/C++ Meetups! Compared to Python you'd think we were trying to start a Sanskrit study group!
The King is dead. Long live the King!
This is the way it always is. Established, dead, boring... You do your work with it but don't get emotional about it. Newer tech, newer languages - these attract a certain personality type that tends to be more passionate about evangilizing and promotion.
Oh, BTW, please copy this and spread it around as prior art in case some jerk tries to patent the very concept of doing this. It's so bloody obvious.
Uhh, where is the prior art? I think you have to present a workable method of constructing such a thing to be either patentable or prior art. Just saying. "Memory cells on ever photo-receptor" doesn't do it. If it did, 99% of all patents would be science fiction - but the PTO exists to ensure that working human inventions are recorded (not our fiction).
No way on this dying thing. You'd better keep living... or else!
The environmentalist death creed: Upon death, my body should be returned to the biosphere in one or more of the following ways: (1) Feed me to other animals - but do not process me first, (2) Leave me to rot and fertilize the land - just drop me somewhere convenient.
n current ZIP encryption, directory information is already accessible, and random access is possible. Individual files are encrypted, not the entire envelope.
Yes.. yes.. But I think the parent post was about STRONG encryption. This fact does weigh in pretty heavy here. It would be slow to create 1 symmetric key, encrypted with the publisher's private key for each zip entry and it would massively weaken a single symmetric key to be used repetitively on multiple zip entries with common headers. So my point was: "Doing this right would require a novel approach"...
Let me state uniquivocally that applying strong encryption to ZIP is about as obvious as you can get. If I were a patent examiner not only would I not grant the patent, but I'd stamp REJECTED on their foreheads as well as their applications and tell them not to come back for at least a year.
Many applications use Zip files as random-access compressed archives. Simply encrypting such archives would prohibit this type of use, so it would be neccessary to create a new technique for individually encrypting all entries in the zip file in such a way that you maintain your security requirements while simultaneously allowing random-access to compressed entries.
Spoof? You mean pretend to be MSN client? Or pretend to be a server to an MSN Client? Maybe you mean pretend to be Microsoft? What are you saying here?
20 Spawn as many clients as possible
Dude, I just don't get it... But I'll give you an 'A" for effort.
Re:I Have Something Like This Built Into My House
on
Picking Up the Pieces
·
· Score: 1
For my old credit cards, I manually shred them with scissors. I'm careful to cut through the number, name, expiration date, etc. I then distribute the pieces into different garbage cans about the house. Some, such as the infrequently used laundry and bathroom cans, won't send their contents to the curb for weeks after the most frequently used can (in the kitchen)..... Even if some thief was determined enough to reassemble my card, he would be quite disappointed to find that there is often no more than $2000 of available credit on it.
Dude!!! Just call the credit-card issuer and tell them to cancel the card (or tell them it was lost/stolen). They will invalidate the card number. You can then get rid of it buy giving it to a homeless guy, making an old-credit-card mural and hanginging it outside (in public), presenting it to any cashier and having it confiscated or simply throwing it away whole (without even bending it!)...
A small business CANNOT afford to employ a full time UNIX administrator.
Well, sure, except the article talks about database performance. This leads me to believe that this business needs to hammer their database, in which case they REQUIRE a database administrator (at least). Once you are there, it is already cheaper to administer if you switch to Unix/Linux. Administrating a Windows server platform is much more expensive than a simillar Unix/Linux platform primarily because of all the graphic interfaces. What you want is good console control and scriptability.
The central fallacy of that argument? If nothing were being taken, nobody would care.
And just who is it, in this case, that cares and why? Think about this carefully.
The RIAA has a suspicion that if you copy a song, you won't legitimately purchase an album. They care because they are greedy and wrong.
People download music because they have a need for the digital medium being offered. iTunes has proven that if you offer the format in demand, people will in fact buy that format instead of downloading... Some will continue to download of course, but those are the same ones that would never buy the CDs anyway.
This doesn't make any sense to me. I'm on 28.8, and 20 results from Google still come up instantly.
It would make alot more sense to you if your read the article.
What these guys are doing is actually pretty cool and makes alot of sense. Here, I'll walk you through it:
Bob, a poor Internet user in a third-world country wants to research new, cheaper ways to clone copyrighted software for sale on his corner. We'll call this guy Microsoft Bob for now, since that't the kind of stuff that Bob sells.
Since bandwidth is very expensive, Microsoft Bob uses this new search tool from MIT and enters a variety of topics that he is interested in (e.g. "Microsoft Office key cracks", "Microsoft Authenticity Symbol Forgery",...). He can do this offline and only needs to pay for a quick burst from the local Internet cafe to the server in Boston.
An hour later, Microsoft Bob checks his email and downloads a compressed folder that was prepared for him in Boston. It takes a couple minutes to download, but that's okay. Bob just saved 3 hours of online search time, and that equates to like 5 copies of MS Office that he doesn't have to sell on the corner. So already, this program is proving more useful than Google at preventing software piracy!
Microsoft Bob unpacks the folder, clicks on the index and can now surf around in the local folder through all of the pages that the search engine found that may be of interests. And since MIT researchers love AI so much, it's probably a pretty good selection of on-topic material.
Go get 'em Bob!
Dude! Get a faster modem. A 56k modem is like, what, $15?
So if the issue comes up, they should just re-write it as a really high tax on printers that use non-refillable cartridges... bla bla..
Aren't you forgetting something? This would require a pretty dramatic beuracracy to oversee the application of this tax. By whom and how is it determined that a manufacturer's printer cannot use aftermarket toner or ink? If the agreements allow for it, but logic circuitry is embedded in the manufacturer's ink cartridges (as is the case with Lexmark), in what way could the tax be applied?
Solving this problem through the application of new taxes would be on the same scale of silliness as buying windows for all of your employees so that they can use email and word processing (i.e. The solution is an order of magnitude more trouble than the problem it is solving).
If having two programs running means consuming more resources, then it may decrease the effectiveness of each program.
Yea, i agree with that. But I think, if I understand what I read correctly, that the NASA model used a GA to grow lookup-tables. It wasn't GP (generated software). In that case, it would in fact be the same program, just different values in the table on different nodes, with a little additional logic to determine which individual (table) to activate when propagating.
Slashdot Mirror
What you write is simply gobledygook, for the following reason:
No company with half a brain would allow users access to data and systems that they don't need to get their work done. And if a user cannot be trusted with the data and systems they need to get their work done, they should be fired.
I know, however, that many companies ARE stupid enough to do this wrong. And then they have to chase the dragon, as you point out.
But it doesn't matter. Joe hacker brings his laptop pre-configured with every hacking kit available to work, plugs it in, create an IP-over HTTP tunnel right through the web-proxy, bridging the intranet with the Internet and does whatever mischief he wants.
And there is nothing you can EVER do about it, except assume that it will happen and architect your networks accordingly. The most important aspect of corporate network architecture are DOMAINS and SEGMENTATION. Do not allow engineers access to marketing, and vice versa. Even in engineering, create small domains and strongly seperate them. Do it with CABLES and FIREWALLS not with *passwords*.
The common Intranet should *never* contain anything that would cause a scandal if it hit the streets.
Moral of the story? Let the engineers and sysadmins do whatever the hell they like, in their domains - they need to anyway in order to be productive. Running around imaging machines DOES NOT PREVENT the disaster scenario that you are invoking and it makes everyone unhappy and less efficient.
I would rate MSN a distant third to the two above at 'embrace and extend' as far as the Internet is concerned.
There is a greater than 80% chance that you are reading this using a MS browser.
You don't have to embrace and extend the net, just the means of accessing it...
r figuring out a strategy to get the GPL tossed out so they could use other strategies to be able to use the code.
hmmm, I wonder what this whole SCO ordeal is?
Yes. That is my worry. First, by drawing legal parallels (not neccessarily common-sense parallels, you understand) between the viral licensing nature of SCO's UNIX (all your derivitive works are belong to us) and the GPL and then by having a massive court battle where IBM ruthlessly smashes SCO and sets precendents...
The danger? Should SCO succeed in drawing the correct parallels and loosing the case in the right way, the variety of viral licensing and viral copyrights that are important to open-source may be legally nullified. Kaboom! The GPL is smashed like so many rotten eggs...
Spread this meme - it is important to get this dangerous scenario into the minds of the people who can do something about it.
It doesn't need to be fast, at least in it's first incarnation. Expect this chip to be revised quickly and become competitive in a few years.
China always takes the long view... That is why they will become such a fierce competitior as time passes...
Microsoft isn't stupid. They have in general a good reputation.
The first sentance is clearly true. The second sentance??? Perhaps they have a good reputation with people that know absolutely nothing about them.
That there is a strange parallel forming between the ways that certain people are talking about the GPL and the SCO / Unix licensing issue?
I think it is just possible that statements by Gates such as "The way the GPL works, if you license any Linux, you have to license all Linux.", should be a clue to what SCO is planning (e.g. The way UNIX licensing works, if you license any UNIX, you have to license SCO UNIX. )
Perhaps the true purpose (revealed) behind the SCO fiasco is to lose in court. But first, they must create a strong set of viral licensing parallels so that, by loosing the lawsuit, they can set precedents that will damage or destroy the GPL.
Do not underestimate the richest man on earth, or his ability to be clever, manipulative and use people's own passions to defeat them...
Meaning only 5% of us actually use Linux.
Err.. no.. I think it means that only 5% of us either work on the kernel or, alternatively, are stupid enough to patch our kernel everytime a new patch is released...
We could play an MS game and add:
"Randomly drop packets when incoming TCP profile matches MS Windows"
-- Seriously, I worked at Sun back in the days of Sun/MS warfare over Java and we were able to prove that Exchange servers would randomly drop emails going to or coming from sun.com... That was some bizarre shite...
I've been trying for MONTHS to get people interested in the C/C++ Meetups! Compared to Python you'd think we were trying to start a Sanskrit study group!
The King is dead. Long live the King!
This is the way it always is. Established, dead, boring... You do your work with it but don't get emotional about it. Newer tech, newer languages - these attract a certain personality type that tends to be more passionate about evangilizing and promotion.
Oh, BTW, please copy this and spread it around as prior art in case some jerk tries to patent the very concept of doing this. It's so bloody obvious.
Uhh, where is the prior art? I think you have to present a workable method of constructing such a thing to be either patentable or prior art. Just saying. "Memory cells on ever photo-receptor" doesn't do it. If it did, 99% of all patents would be science fiction - but the PTO exists to ensure that working human inventions are recorded (not our fiction).
No way on this dying thing. You'd better keep living... or else!
The environmentalist death creed: Upon death, my body should be returned to the biosphere in one or more of the following ways: (1) Feed me to other animals - but do not process me first, (2) Leave me to rot and fertilize the land - just drop me somewhere convenient.
Those fools in the mainstream science community just refuse to believe me though.
Perhaps they can't reproduce your results. Maybe the cold-fusion power cell that you are using is throwing them?
n current ZIP encryption, directory information is already accessible, and random access is possible. Individual files are encrypted, not the entire envelope.
Yes.. yes.. But I think the parent post was about STRONG encryption. This fact does weigh in pretty heavy here. It would be slow to create 1 symmetric key, encrypted with the publisher's private key for each zip entry and it would massively weaken a single symmetric key to be used repetitively on multiple zip entries with common headers. So my point was: "Doing this right would require a novel approach"...
Don't you think?
No wonder I have been having to reboot my Linux machines a lot lately.... I wondered what had happened.
Who'd have guessed?
Let me state uniquivocally that applying strong encryption to ZIP is about as obvious as you can get. If I were a patent examiner not only would I not grant the patent, but I'd stamp REJECTED on their foreheads as well as their applications and tell them not to come back for at least a year.
Many applications use Zip files as random-access compressed archives. Simply encrypting such archives would prohibit this type of use, so it would be neccessary to create a new technique for individually encrypting all entries in the zip file in such a way that you maintain your security requirements while simultaneously allowing random-access to compressed entries.
I think this actually would be novel...
Here is a link to Linus's thoughts on this:
h tml
http://www.ggi-project.org/mailinglist/may99/320.
How does that work? scratch, scratch
30 If packet for client contains '$' GOTO 50
???? You mean like a credit-card number?
10 Spoof MSN Client
Spoof? You mean pretend to be MSN client? Or pretend to be a server to an MSN Client? Maybe you mean pretend to be Microsoft? What are you saying here?
20 Spawn as many clients as possible
Dude, I just don't get it... But I'll give you an 'A" for effort.
For my old credit cards, I manually shred them with scissors. I'm careful to cut through the number, name, expiration date, etc. I then distribute the pieces into different garbage cans about the house. Some, such as the infrequently used laundry and bathroom cans, won't send their contents to the curb for weeks after the most frequently used can (in the kitchen)..... Even if some thief was determined enough to reassemble my card, he would be quite disappointed to find that there is often no more than $2000 of available credit on it.
Dude!!! Just call the credit-card issuer and tell them to cancel the card (or tell them it was lost/stolen). They will invalidate the card number. You can then get rid of it buy giving it to a homeless guy, making an old-credit-card mural and hanginging it outside (in public), presenting it to any cashier and having it confiscated or simply throwing it away whole (without even bending it!)...
A small business CANNOT afford to employ a full time UNIX administrator.
Well, sure, except the article talks about database performance. This leads me to believe that this business needs to hammer their database, in which case they REQUIRE a database administrator (at least). Once you are there, it is already cheaper to administer if you switch to Unix/Linux. Administrating a Windows server platform is much more expensive than a simillar Unix/Linux platform primarily because of all the graphic interfaces. What you want is good console control and scriptability.
The central fallacy of that argument? If nothing were being taken, nobody would care.
And just who is it, in this case, that cares and why? Think about this carefully.
The RIAA has a suspicion that if you copy a song, you won't legitimately purchase an album. They care because they are greedy and wrong.
People download music because they have a need for the digital medium being offered. iTunes has proven that if you offer the format in demand, people will in fact buy that format instead of downloading... Some will continue to download of course, but those are the same ones that would never buy the CDs anyway.
It would make alot more sense to you if your read the article.
What these guys are doing is actually pretty cool and makes alot of sense. Here, I'll walk you through it:
Go get 'em Bob!
Dude! Get a faster modem. A 56k modem is like, what, $15?
So if the issue comes up, they should just re-write it as a really high tax on printers that use non-refillable cartridges... bla bla..
Aren't you forgetting something? This would require a pretty dramatic beuracracy to oversee the application of this tax. By whom and how is it determined that a manufacturer's printer cannot use aftermarket toner or ink? If the agreements allow for it, but logic circuitry is embedded in the manufacturer's ink cartridges (as is the case with Lexmark), in what way could the tax be applied?
Solving this problem through the application of new taxes would be on the same scale of silliness as buying windows for all of your employees so that they can use email and word processing (i.e. The solution is an order of magnitude more trouble than the problem it is solving).
So adding filetype:ppt gives you an HTML viewer for powerpoint via google? How nifty. learn something new everyday.
Anyone try this technique with these presentations?
No Borg icon? No wise cracks? What gives?
The Borg icon is reserved for things that small and soft do on purpose and wise cracks are really not needed when talking about Windows security...
You really need this play by play?
If having two programs running means consuming more resources, then it may decrease the effectiveness of each program.
Yea, i agree with that. But I think, if I understand what I read correctly, that the NASA model used a GA to grow lookup-tables. It wasn't GP (generated software). In that case, it would in fact be the same program, just different values in the table on different nodes, with a little additional logic to determine which individual (table) to activate when propagating.