You are touching on an important point. Many of the comments here have suggested something to the effect that "he got what he deserved." It is a fundemental principle of our criminal justice system that the police do not mete out punishment, the courts do. The police's job is to contain a situation, detain suspects, and allow the courts to determine and administer punishment.
The instant that you look to the police to *punish* people is the moment that you move into the realm of repression. I think that this is the fundemental point and understanding this does not require one to be sympathetic to the student or to the police.
You make several claims that I believe are not supported by the empirical evidence. I'll pick a couple:
You suggest that new immigrants do not want to assimilate (or wish to do so less than immigrants in the past.
FACT: "the vast majority of immigrants speak English well. In 1990, only 1/4 of immigrants reported speaking English poorly or not at all" National Bureau of Economic Research
It is true that adults that arrive with poor English skills often continue to have poor English skills. This has always been the case to varying degrees, and is more related to critical periods in language acquisition (e.g., its easier for children to learn a new language than adults) than a general lack of effort or interest.
FACT: "Only 7 percent of the children of Latino immigrants speak Spanish as a primary language, and virtually none of their children do." Washington Post citing data from the Census Bueau, 2000
Overwhelming statistical evidence is that by children of immigrants, regardless of country of origin, are highly assimilated, much less tied to their parents country of origin than the United States.
OK, As long as i'm getting all empirical on your ass, I'll also add the following regarding the economic costs of illegal immigration:
FACT: "we find that the average immigrant family received $1,404 in welfare services in years 1-5 in the United
States, $1,941 in years 6-10, $2,247 in years 11-15, and $2,279 in years 16-25. Natives averaged $2,279..."
and
FACT: "the average native family paid $3,008 in taxes in 1975. In comparison, immigrant families here 10 years
paid $3,369, those here 11-15 years paid $3,564, and those here 16-25 years paid $3,592--in all those cases, substantially surpassing natives' payments."
Finally, this suggests "the consolidated data on services used and taxes paid show substantial differences
to the benefit of natives: an average of $1,354 yearly for the first 5 years the immigrant families are in the United States, and $1,329, $1,525, and $1,383 for years 6-10, 11-15, and 16-25, respectively. These are the amounts that natives are enriched each year through the public coffers by each additional immigrant family on average. "
ME: Alot of claims are often thrown around, about immigration and how it is somehow different from the past. I can't speak to your motives, but alot of what seems different these days is that our newest immigrants are brown people that the Europeans immigrants of the early 1900s just don't feel comfortable with. Statistically speaking, there seems to be little different about these new immigrants. Evidence suggests that they will become American as thuroughly as yesterday's immigrants and that America benefits enormously by their presence.
I say, welcome to America, and thank you for supporting me in my old age!
The part that is missing from much of the discussion is that there are several important differences between small mammals (e.g., rabbits in Australia), amphibians (cane toads), and nonnative plants (e.g., kudzu) and large herbivores and carnivores.
First, many habitats have far larger carrying capacities for small animals (in terms of numbers) and these small animals are often adapted to rapidly increase in population with available resources, often causing, in unstabilized environments, population explosions when conditions are the least bit favorable. Its a standard strategy for many small animals and plants.
Contrast this with the kind of megafauna proposed here. While conditions like over population is possible, standard wildlife management strategies work quite well because of the slowness of the reproductive cycle and the associated population. So, the example of cane toads or kudzu doesn't quite apply here.
Another important point is that these large animals, especially herbivores like elephants play an important role in the ecosystem that could be beneficial for some environments such as Texas grasslands where woody vegetation is starting to choke out what used to be fairly open territory (I am unsure exactly what has changed to cause this however, perhaps a combination of fire suppression and bison population reduction?). In any case, such introductions could actually substantially improve the carrying capacity of the land both from a biodiversity standpoint and even *gasp* for ranchers who regularly battle such woody plants like mesquite.
No apologies necessary. Frankly, its probably a sore topic for everyone. Students hate getting stuck with textbook tabs of upwards of $500, I hate helping to stick students with it and I particularly hate then the complaints that I inevitably get (hence my soreness).
Obviously the economics involved are complex and some of the responses to these harsh economics are also liable for complaints. There are many reasons that Academia is a funny kind of market place. Some of it is blatant inefficiencies but most represent tradeoffs that include considerations typically outside of pure market calculations (rightly so I think, and this is what might make it appear yet more inefficient).
University presses are a great example of this. They exist and are often (but not always) partially subsidized by the University because some worthwhile knowledge isn't profitable.
The OP was probably over the top in attributing it to evil corporations. However, in many cases, it isn't clear that the solution is more exposure to pure market forces.
I'll concede that this isn't an ideal example. The point is simple that decisions about purchasing goods and services are rarely independent of all prior events and that alone does not constitute an artificial market.
I'm a professor, I attempt to select the best possible book for the course that I teach. I have published books but I have never required one of my books for a course (actually I have distributed electronic versions of portions of text to students to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by requiring this).
I try to take into account the cost of texts but there are many other considerations and while I might hate requiring a $100 book, what am I to do if I decide this book is superior to an $50 book?
I am not sure what "artificial market" you refer to although I suspect you are referring to the fact that the people incurring the cost aren't those making the selection of the product. While true, this does not necessarily constitute an artificial market. Many products and services (and while I am loath to refer to education as a product but for the sake of argument) have other costs that you may be liable for once you've purchased the original product or service. Think cars and car repairs.
I dont' like the shape of market forces in the textbook industry and many professors feel the same way. Many of us take steps to mitigate these costs (I push fair use to the absolute limit in making electronic resources available to my students at no cost). We simply have so many constraints that the end result is always a compromise.
Finally, I recommend avoiding statements like "Everybody knows..." Its usually a clear sign that what ever is coming next is vastly oversimplified, self-righteous, or just plain ignorant.
My laboratory was hit. We're all linux machines. Turns out that I still had an account on a system at Stanford where I was faculty and I transferred some files via scp to my machine at my current university. 4-5 days later, i see some logins from Stanford to my machine but I because I had been using the Stanford account recently, it just didn't register.
One day later, I'm on another lab machine using my lab/home directory (different from my main machine) and i notice a program (it was either brk.c or dobrk.c I think) that was on an unpatched system, allowed a priviledge escalation. I switch to root and look at the history and see a command to stop recording the command history but he (and the article indicates the person is male) misstypied it so i could see that he logged into this machine from mine, grabbed the source code for the exploit from a warez site, compiled, ran, got root, and just tooled around a little.
Because our machines are pretty isolated and don't have any hint of financial stuff, he seemed to just drop it. I called the sysadmin at Stanford, turned out that on a machine with over 500 accounts (i won't say which department), the machine had been rooted about 2 months prior and every password was being captured during that time. The breakin was tracked back through a couple of departments, then back to University of Michigan, then to Uppsala.
Three valuable and perhaps obvious lessons here. Local priviledge escalation exploits are important even if your system has very few users. Keep your system patched (duh...), and remember, if you log onto your machine from another, ask yourself "What do I know about the integrity of this machine?". I really assumed that my stanford account was pretty secure and so I didn't even think about logging from that machine to my current one. No more.
The other interesting thing was that the local exploit used on my machines was announced well after the Stanford machine was hit. I don't think I ever heard of how that machine was comprimised.
Does faking your age count as social engineering?:)
Good point. Screw the remote exploit. We need people to try to get in contact with some folks at:
via whois
Registrant:
Penton IT Media Group
221 E. 29th Street
Loveland, CO 80538
US
Domain name: HACKIIS6.COM
Administrative Contact:
Phelps, Chad cphelps@windowsitpro.com
221 E. 29th Street
Loveland, CO 80538
US
+01.9702032960 Fax: =01.9706672321
Technical Contact:
Phelps, Chad cphelps@windowsitpro.com
221 E. 29th Street
Loveland, CO 80538
US
+01.9702032960 Fax: =01.9706672321
Seriously, often the best methods for hacking a high value site (for example getting financial data) is social engineering. I think it would be hilarious if someone was successful this way. Lets see Microsoft issue a patch for that.
a few quotes from "syousef" Yes, lets all fragment our efforts to kingdom come, then try to compete with proprietary software.
Here's the thing. Alot of us aren't trying to compete with other software companies. I want something open, hackable, stable, and works for me. I don't give a flying f*ck whether it "competes" with someone else or not.
Can we please get off the idea that everyone's goal is to bring down Microsoft??? Yeah, alot of stuff happens in OSS that isn't sensible if we're going to compete with MS or others. But then, for alot of us, that wasn't, isn't, and never was the point.
Lets have 3 different office suites, none of which quite translate MS Office stuff quite right....and then lets wonder why Linux isn't taking off on the desktop.
Pardon my french but F*CK LINUX ON THE DESKTOP. That manta is getting used to beat to death anyone that doesn't want 'one size fits all" approach. I use linux all of the time, I have a perfectly usable desktop for me. Its great if changes happen that bring more people to linux but whether that does or not is not going to keep me up nights. Its worked well with as few of us as there were in '97 (for me), and its still good.
Lets decide whether we're doing cool techy geeky play stuff, or whether we want to produce something real and tangible and useable by everyone.
I have and its neither. I have work to do and what i have now lets me get alot done. It happens to be real, tangible, and useable. By everyone? No, perhaps not everyone. Do i care that I don't include "everyone"? Not one single bit.
Diversity is good. Its confusing, its complicated, and it can be frightening. Its that diversity that will prevent it from going the way of the dinosaur (i.e. extinct). Anyone that believes that diversity will lead to extinction knows little about evolution and little about OSS.
At each step of technological advancement, the less complex "stuff" gets commodified and the real money to be made (e.g., profit margin, not gross) moves up to the more complex, and difficult problem to solve.
"Services" research is basically attempts to solve problems in complex dynamical systems and draws on alot of cutting edge research in systems research, cognitive and social psychology, econometrics, etc. Its not that there aren't novel problems in physics to be solved but a great deal of the practical applications from research in physics is going to be incremental advances in CPU power, memory, etc.
On the other hand, the advances in areas related to services is going to be (catchphrase alert) "disruptive" (sorry but it seems appropriate). That is, areas of research, novel in their own right, will need to be combined to make advances and these advances could radically change organizational structure and practices in entirely unpredictable ways. It seems like the only analogy is with biotechnology. Perhaps to survive, IBM was destined to move either into biotechnology or services.
You know, I'm as likely to bash microsoft as the next person, but I have to say that all of this focus of the Linux community on Microsoft is long past over done.
Time was, all alot of us wanted was a computing environment that was good, stable, and allowed the kind of tinkering that isn't possible for closed system. I have that, and if other people find this more appealling than MS's offerings, great but that doesn't change my life much. (Yeah, I know, if MS owned everything, that would be bad, but that isn't what keeps me in the OSS community...)
So, I have to say, I don't give a flying f*ck whether there are 2, 10, or 100 different desktops. If there's people to support it, great. If not, it goes away. The reason there are so many different version is because we all have different needs, wants, desires, and hobby horses.
Divided we fall my ass. It ain't a war to alot of us, its a pastime, a hobby, for some of the lucky, a job too. Ubuntu's doing well? Great. Debian not doing so well? So do something like... well... Ubuntu... This embodies so much of what I love about OSS.
Places like speakeasy are in for a kick in the balls, aren't they?
They offer 6mbit/768 for 100 bucks a month, vs 60 bucks a month for Comcast with no TV service.
Now, geeks know they have a much more sensible approach to users hosting, and generally not fucking with our traffic for no good reason, but I don't see how they can sell that to the masses.
I have Speakeasy and i'm paying $100/month. However, this price is a little deceiving. See, i can get DSL from Speakeasy without having an active phone line. Because i just use my cell for voice, i save $40 per month in phone line charges.
Also, having had other DSL providers, I'll say that Speakeasy is by far the easiest to deal with for *any* kind of technical problem.
"Why, for crap's sake, is it not okay for the government to provide free wirless broadband access in Philadelphia?"
Because that's not their job. Their job is to provide essential emergency services, maintain the transportation infrastructure and provide defense. They should no more be building wireless
The definition of "emergency services" and "infrastructure" should be allowed to evolve. We may very well be at the beginning of a process where continual connectivity is indeed a part of critical infrastructure that is the legitimate role of government. To legislate this out of existence seems a bit presumptive and smacks of protecting corporate interests.
of how cool it sounds, have you ever seen the government do any long-term project right? Most Pennsylvania governments have a hard time keeping the potholes down to non-fatal sizes, and you want them to run your ISP? I grew up near Philly, I wouldn't trust them with tin cans and string.
Many cities have functioning water supplies, sewer systems, electicity grids. No all function optimally but we get the water, we don't get sick from it, and our poo goes by by. Yes, government can function and this government hating mantra so common these days is vastly overdone.
"Im pretty sure there are not many people in Philly who would not like to have free wireless internet"
It's not "free", the government raises taxes to pay for it, which means a lot of folks who don't want or need it still have to pay for it, and that's not fair.
Excellent point. There are parts of the city that I never go in, why the hell am i paying for street lights there. I never use the damned things. Its unfair people, blatantly unfair!. Do you ever stop to consider, just once, the possibility that you may derive indirect benefits from things and that government isn't about benefiting just YOU, its about the community. I think that a reasonable argument could be made that there might be benefits to the community. At least its not obvious that this is completely inappropriate for government.
The creator emphasizes that the system cannot recognize voices or words, but his previous research into speech recognition systems suggests otherwise.
Don't be a dumbass. If someone is doing work in pattern recognition in an audio signal, something, something that they have done is related to speech recognition.
this is like saying that because a programmer has contributed code to Apache and MySQL, that this suggests that they might be trying to hide database software in the webserver.
Sorry, but it was a stupid side comment that makes you look like a dolt.
If Microsoft so wants to destroy Linux, why not hire a few dozen developers, create a fork of Linux that is incompatible with Linus' but includes more desireable (likely patented) features than Linus'? They could basically take control of Linux.
Ah, that's the genius of the GPL. I think that any attempt to "take control" is going to be very difficult without attracting a community of developers (unlikely with MS) and staying far enough ahead of the competition. Well, if the code is GPL'd, then the competition isn't going to be very far behind.
Do you know anyone that has been arrested?
Jose Padilla? Ahmed Hamdi?
Lets be clear about this. This administration would like to have the power to keep United States citizens in detention, without access to counsel or judicial review. Why have they not been able to? Because the Supreme Court said they could not. So the system works right? We'll see. Bush named Thomas as one of his favorite justices. IIRC, Thomas was the only one of the justices that said, "Yes, the executive branch should have the ability to do this to US citizens without oversight."
The question is not whether you are too paranoid, its whether you are paranoid enough. The biggest weapon of mass destruction right now happens to be sitting in the White House.
The same government that:
Wants to tax the internet?
Hmm, tax what? service delivery? Is the internet that different from other services that it, in contrast to power, water, and other utilities, it should be tax free?
Tax online shopping?
So, why should purchasing something from Amazon be tax free but going to Borders is taxed?
Tax VoIP?
Are you going to want to contact 911 services using VoIP or will you keep your cell and landline for this? Yes? Then you will need to support it.
Denies access to frequency spectrum that could currently be used more efficiently for broadband internet?
I am without enough information to respond to this.
If anything there is STILL too much goverment regulation.
Look people, there ain't no free ride. If you want something, you gotta pay for it. The fact is that government exists because there are somethings better done collectively than by everyone individually or by commercial entities. is it always the most efficient? No. But at least the first three things you cite I think have at least semirational bases and you're comment makes it sound like you just don't want to put a crowbar in your wallet and pay for it. Tell ya' what, why don't we just provide you with all these services anyway and then we'll just put the tab on your kids. Oh wait, we're already doing that....
That's because you don't make your living off creating original IP. Music, Movies, Games, Books, Etc. br>
I'm a scientist. I create what you refer to as IP every day.
Please. Please take the time to understand the issue from the point of view of the artists. And please be mature enough to realize that not all artists are rich spoiled musicians.
I never said nor thought that they were all "rich spoiled musicians". Indeed, I would argue that small indendent creators have more to gain from a system of distribution that bypasses the typical middle men such as publishers and record labels. I have many friends that have had book or recording contracts. I think that I would have a hard time telling these individuals whose market is likely to be small for their output that they are better off with these publishers/labels than developing alternative distribution methods. P2P is one possible distribution method and one that does not obviously equate to taking the food from the mouth of creators children.
Do you believe that anything that is not a solid object should be freely copied whenever someone wants?
Nice attempt to distort my original point. No, of course I do not. Do you believe that the only and best way that creators can make a living is by allowing a small number of media companies control distribution and use of media?
Have you really spent the time to think about what that would really mean?
I'm bloody well sick and tired of the piracy argument. The most succint argument about the permission culture that we are moving towards is put by Lessig in "Free Culture". We have this view that because something has value, that it equates to right. Look, if i bloody well want to share files, it is not obvious that I am "stealing" from anyone.
Example: When photography first became relatively widespread, it was not clear whether someone was in their right to take pictures of people or buildings without permission. Afterall, the photographer might be getting something of value, so perhaps they should ask permission. Now, ask yourself, what would the culture be like right now if whenever you wanted to take some vacation photos, you need to get permission? Jeez, Kodak would have been just like Napster, just aiding people trying to steal other people's value.
Remember, treating sharing as stealing someone's property is *one* system for treating intellectual property but it ain't the only one and it sure as hell ain't the one that the US has had for at least its first 180 years.
Piracy? Bloody well pisses me off whenever someone uses that term!
You guys are going nuts on trying to figure out if Sun is Pro-Linux or against it. The truth is both and neither
The situation with Sun reminds me a bit of the competing units within Sony. In many large corporations, there are divisions that are not always pulling in the same direction. Sony, for example, makes consumer electronics that can, among other things, play, record, or otherwise distribute music. The goal of this division is to make money by making this easier for the consumer. Another division of Sony distributes music and anything that makes it more difficult to record, copy or distribute "unauthorized" copies is bad and should be fought. Well, what does Sony do? Sony tries to do both, and if you listen to Sony reps, they can say one thing today and a very different thing tomorrow. They are big and they are conflicted...
Sun is at a really tough juncture and there might be global influences pushing Sun to be anti-Linux (e.g., it will eat them alive), but there are units that are supportive to varying degrees of Linux and free software. This support doesn't come from the Company as a whole but it serves a more limited constituency of that unit of Sun. Upshot? Expect lots of mixed messages but understand that many parts of Sun have been very very good to FOSS and that deserves to be recognized. Now, lets get back to bashing Sun, the company!
Slashdot Mirror
"People who liked this book dated this person!"
"People who dated this person also dated this person."
I'm only sort of joking...
You are touching on an important point. Many of the comments here have suggested something to the effect that "he got what he deserved." It is a fundemental principle of our criminal justice system that the police do not mete out punishment, the courts do. The police's job is to contain a situation, detain suspects, and allow the courts to determine and administer punishment.
The instant that you look to the police to *punish* people is the moment that you move into the realm of repression. I think that this is the fundemental point and understanding this does not require one to be sympathetic to the student or to the police.
You make several claims that I believe are not supported by the empirical evidence. I'll pick a couple:
You suggest that new immigrants do not want to assimilate (or wish to do so less than immigrants in the past.
FACT: "the vast majority of immigrants speak English well. In 1990, only 1/4 of immigrants reported speaking English poorly or not at all" National Bureau of Economic Research
It is true that adults that arrive with poor English skills often continue to have poor English skills. This has always been the case to varying degrees, and is more related to critical periods in language acquisition (e.g., its easier for children to learn a new language than adults) than a general lack of effort or interest.
FACT: "Only 7 percent of the children of Latino immigrants speak Spanish as a primary language, and virtually none of their children do." Washington Post citing data from the Census Bueau, 2000
Overwhelming statistical evidence is that by children of immigrants, regardless of country of origin, are highly assimilated, much less tied to their parents country of origin than the United States.
OK, As long as i'm getting all empirical on your ass, I'll also add the following regarding the economic costs of illegal immigration:
FACT: "we find that the average immigrant family received $1,404 in welfare services in years 1-5 in the United States, $1,941 in years 6-10, $2,247 in years 11-15, and $2,279 in years 16-25. Natives averaged $2,279..."
and
FACT: "the average native family paid $3,008 in taxes in 1975. In comparison, immigrant families here 10 years paid $3,369, those here 11-15 years paid $3,564, and those here 16-25 years paid $3,592--in all those cases, substantially surpassing natives' payments."
Finally, this suggests "the consolidated data on services used and taxes paid show substantial differences to the benefit of natives: an average of $1,354 yearly for the first 5 years the immigrant families are in the United States, and $1,329, $1,525, and $1,383 for years 6-10, 11-15, and 16-25, respectively. These are the amounts that natives are enriched each year through the public coffers by each additional immigrant family on average. "
Julian L. Simon, Cato Institute and the National Immigrant Forum
ME: Alot of claims are often thrown around, about immigration and how it is somehow different from the past. I can't speak to your motives, but alot of what seems different these days is that our newest immigrants are brown people that the Europeans immigrants of the early 1900s just don't feel comfortable with. Statistically speaking, there seems to be little different about these new immigrants. Evidence suggests that they will become American as thuroughly as yesterday's immigrants and that America benefits enormously by their presence.
I say, welcome to America, and thank you for supporting me in my old age!
So, how many Libraries of Congress would this be?
The part that is missing from much of the discussion is that there are several important differences between small mammals (e.g., rabbits in Australia), amphibians (cane toads), and nonnative plants (e.g., kudzu) and large herbivores and carnivores.
First, many habitats have far larger carrying capacities for small animals (in terms of numbers) and these small animals are often adapted to rapidly increase in population with available resources, often causing, in unstabilized environments, population explosions when conditions are the least bit favorable. Its a standard strategy for many small animals and plants.
Contrast this with the kind of megafauna proposed here. While conditions like over population is possible, standard wildlife management strategies work quite well because of the slowness of the reproductive cycle and the associated population. So, the example of cane toads or kudzu doesn't quite apply here.
Another important point is that these large animals, especially herbivores like elephants play an important role in the ecosystem that could be beneficial for some environments such as Texas grasslands where woody vegetation is starting to choke out what used to be fairly open territory (I am unsure exactly what has changed to cause this however, perhaps a combination of fire suppression and bison population reduction?). In any case, such introductions could actually substantially improve the carrying capacity of the land both from a biodiversity standpoint and even *gasp* for ranchers who regularly battle such woody plants like mesquite.
No apologies necessary. Frankly, its probably a sore topic for everyone. Students hate getting stuck with textbook tabs of upwards of $500, I hate helping to stick students with it and I particularly hate then the complaints that I inevitably get (hence my soreness).
Obviously the economics involved are complex and some of the responses to these harsh economics are also liable for complaints. There are many reasons that Academia is a funny kind of market place. Some of it is blatant inefficiencies but most represent tradeoffs that include considerations typically outside of pure market calculations (rightly so I think, and this is what might make it appear yet more inefficient).
University presses are a great example of this. They exist and are often (but not always) partially subsidized by the University because some worthwhile knowledge isn't profitable.
The OP was probably over the top in attributing it to evil corporations. However, in many cases, it isn't clear that the solution is more exposure to pure market forces.
But then, I'm no economist so what do i know...
I'll concede that this isn't an ideal example. The point is simple that decisions about purchasing goods and services are rarely independent of all prior events and that alone does not constitute an artificial market.
Insightful? Please...
I'm a professor, I attempt to select the best possible book for the course that I teach. I have published books but I have never required one of my books for a course (actually I have distributed electronic versions of portions of text to students to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by requiring this).
I try to take into account the cost of texts but there are many other considerations and while I might hate requiring a $100 book, what am I to do if I decide this book is superior to an $50 book?
I am not sure what "artificial market" you refer to although I suspect you are referring to the fact that the people incurring the cost aren't those making the selection of the product. While true, this does not necessarily constitute an artificial market. Many products and services (and while I am loath to refer to education as a product but for the sake of argument) have other costs that you may be liable for once you've purchased the original product or service. Think cars and car repairs.
I dont' like the shape of market forces in the textbook industry and many professors feel the same way. Many of us take steps to mitigate these costs (I push fair use to the absolute limit in making electronic resources available to my students at no cost). We simply have so many constraints that the end result is always a compromise.
Finally, I recommend avoiding statements like "Everybody knows..." Its usually a clear sign that what ever is coming next is vastly oversimplified, self-righteous, or just plain ignorant.
It may have had perceptable quality improvements (though the jury is out on this) ...
Jesus, call it a hung jury already!
its like the longest friggin' trial in history...
My laboratory was hit. We're all linux machines. Turns out that I still had an account on a system at Stanford where I was faculty and I transferred some files via scp to my machine at my current university. 4-5 days later, i see some logins from Stanford to my machine but I because I had been using the Stanford account recently, it just didn't register.
/home directory (different from my main machine) and i notice a program (it was either brk.c or dobrk.c I think) that was on an unpatched system, allowed a priviledge escalation. I switch to root and look at the history and see a command to stop recording the command history but he (and the article indicates the person is male) misstypied it so i could see that he logged into this machine from mine, grabbed the source code for the exploit from a warez site, compiled, ran, got root, and just tooled around a little.
One day later, I'm on another lab machine using my lab
Because our machines are pretty isolated and don't have any hint of financial stuff, he seemed to just drop it. I called the sysadmin at Stanford, turned out that on a machine with over 500 accounts (i won't say which department), the machine had been rooted about 2 months prior and every password was being captured during that time. The breakin was tracked back through a couple of departments, then back to University of Michigan, then to Uppsala.
Three valuable and perhaps obvious lessons here. Local priviledge escalation exploits are important even if your system has very few users. Keep your system patched (duh...), and remember, if you log onto your machine from another, ask yourself "What do I know about the integrity of this machine?". I really assumed that my stanford account was pretty secure and so I didn't even think about logging from that machine to my current one. No more.
The other interesting thing was that the local exploit used on my machines was announced well after the Stanford machine was hit. I don't think I ever heard of how that machine was comprimised.
Good point. Screw the remote exploit. We need people to try to get in contact with some folks at:
via whois
Seriously, often the best methods for hacking a high value site (for example getting financial data) is social engineering. I think it would be hilarious if someone was successful this way. Lets see Microsoft issue a patch for that.
Hmm, how would you apply it?
a few quotes from "syousef"
...and then lets wonder why Linux isn't taking off on the desktop.
Yes, lets all fragment our efforts to kingdom come, then try to compete with proprietary software.
Here's the thing. Alot of us aren't trying to compete with other software companies. I want something open, hackable, stable, and works for me. I don't give a flying f*ck whether it "competes" with someone else or not.
Can we please get off the idea that everyone's goal is to bring down Microsoft??? Yeah, alot of stuff happens in OSS that isn't sensible if we're going to compete with MS or others. But then, for alot of us, that wasn't, isn't, and never was the point.
Lets have 3 different office suites, none of which quite translate MS Office stuff quite right.
Pardon my french but F*CK LINUX ON THE DESKTOP. That manta is getting used to beat to death anyone that doesn't want 'one size fits all" approach. I use linux all of the time, I have a perfectly usable desktop for me. Its great if changes happen that bring more people to linux but whether that does or not is not going to keep me up nights. Its worked well with as few of us as there were in '97 (for me), and its still good.
Lets decide whether we're doing cool techy geeky play stuff, or whether we want to produce something real and tangible and useable by everyone.
I have and its neither. I have work to do and what i have now lets me get alot done. It happens to be real, tangible, and useable. By everyone? No, perhaps not everyone. Do i care that I don't include "everyone"? Not one single bit.
Diversity is good. Its confusing, its complicated, and it can be frightening. Its that diversity that will prevent it from going the way of the dinosaur (i.e. extinct). Anyone that believes that diversity will lead to extinction knows little about evolution and little about OSS.
At each step of technological advancement, the less complex "stuff" gets commodified and the real money to be made (e.g., profit margin, not gross) moves up to the more complex, and difficult problem to solve.
"Services" research is basically attempts to solve problems in complex dynamical systems and draws on alot of cutting edge research in systems research, cognitive and social psychology, econometrics, etc. Its not that there aren't novel problems in physics to be solved but a great deal of the practical applications from research in physics is going to be incremental advances in CPU power, memory, etc.
On the other hand, the advances in areas related to services is going to be (catchphrase alert) "disruptive" (sorry but it seems appropriate). That is, areas of research, novel in their own right, will need to be combined to make advances and these advances could radically change organizational structure and practices in entirely unpredictable ways. It seems like the only analogy is with biotechnology. Perhaps to survive, IBM was destined to move either into biotechnology or services.
You know, I'm as likely to bash microsoft as the next person, but I have to say that all of this focus of the Linux community on Microsoft is long past over done.
Time was, all alot of us wanted was a computing environment that was good, stable, and allowed the kind of tinkering that isn't possible for closed system. I have that, and if other people find this more appealling than MS's offerings, great but that doesn't change my life much. (Yeah, I know, if MS owned everything, that would be bad, but that isn't what keeps me in the OSS community...)
So, I have to say, I don't give a flying f*ck whether there are 2, 10, or 100 different desktops. If there's people to support it, great. If not, it goes away. The reason there are so many different version is because we all have different needs, wants, desires, and hobby horses.
Divided we fall my ass. It ain't a war to alot of us, its a pastime, a hobby, for some of the lucky, a job too. Ubuntu's doing well? Great. Debian not doing so well? So do something like... well... Ubuntu... This embodies so much of what I love about OSS.
But when those people who weren't properly taught by the badly-funded schools and libraries are robbing stores, making meth, and doing other things...
At least they seemed to learn some chemistry...
Places like speakeasy are in for a kick in the balls, aren't they?
They offer 6mbit/768 for 100 bucks a month, vs 60 bucks a month for Comcast with no TV service.
Now, geeks know they have a much more sensible approach to users hosting, and generally not fucking with our traffic for no good reason, but I don't see how they can sell that to the masses.
I have Speakeasy and i'm paying $100/month. However, this price is a little deceiving. See, i can get DSL from Speakeasy without having an active phone line. Because i just use my cell for voice, i save $40 per month in phone line charges.
Also, having had other DSL providers, I'll say that Speakeasy is by far the easiest to deal with for *any* kind of technical problem.
Ok, i can't suppress the urge to reply to this.
"Why, for crap's sake, is it not okay for the government to provide free wirless broadband access in Philadelphia?"
Because that's not their job. Their job is to provide essential emergency services, maintain the transportation infrastructure and provide defense. They should no more be building wireless
The definition of "emergency services" and "infrastructure" should be allowed to evolve. We may very well be at the beginning of a process where continual connectivity is indeed a part of critical infrastructure that is the legitimate role of government. To legislate this out of existence seems a bit presumptive and smacks of protecting corporate interests.
of how cool it sounds, have you ever seen the government do any long-term project right? Most Pennsylvania governments have a hard time keeping the potholes down to non-fatal sizes, and you want them to run your ISP? I grew up near Philly, I wouldn't trust them with tin cans and string.
Many cities have functioning water supplies, sewer systems, electicity grids. No all function optimally but we get the water, we don't get sick from it, and our poo goes by by. Yes, government can function and this government hating mantra so common these days is vastly overdone.
"Im pretty sure there are not many people in Philly who would not like to have free wireless internet"
It's not "free", the government raises taxes to pay for it, which means a lot of folks who don't want or need it still have to pay for it, and that's not fair.
Excellent point. There are parts of the city that I never go in, why the hell am i paying for street lights there. I never use the damned things. Its unfair people, blatantly unfair!. Do you ever stop to consider, just once, the possibility that you may derive indirect benefits from things and that government isn't about benefiting just YOU, its about the community. I think that a reasonable argument could be made that there might be benefits to the community. At least its not obvious that this is completely inappropriate for government.
The creator emphasizes that the system cannot recognize voices or words, but his previous research into speech recognition systems suggests otherwise.
Don't be a dumbass. If someone is doing work in pattern recognition in an audio signal, something, something that they have done is related to speech recognition.
this is like saying that because a programmer has contributed code to Apache and MySQL, that this suggests that they might be trying to hide database software in the webserver.
Sorry, but it was a stupid side comment that makes you look like a dolt.
If Microsoft so wants to destroy Linux, why not hire a few dozen developers, create a fork of Linux that is incompatible with Linus' but includes more desireable (likely patented) features than Linus'? They could basically take control of Linux.
Ah, that's the genius of the GPL. I think that any attempt to "take control" is going to be very difficult without attracting a community of developers (unlikely with MS) and staying far enough ahead of the competition. Well, if the code is GPL'd, then the competition isn't going to be very far behind.
Do you know anyone that has been arrested? Jose Padilla? Ahmed Hamdi?
Lets be clear about this. This administration would like to have the power to keep United States citizens in detention, without access to counsel or judicial review. Why have they not been able to? Because the Supreme Court said they could not. So the system works right? We'll see. Bush named Thomas as one of his favorite justices. IIRC, Thomas was the only one of the justices that said, "Yes, the executive branch should have the ability to do this to US citizens without oversight."
The question is not whether you are too paranoid, its whether you are paranoid enough. The biggest weapon of mass destruction right now happens to be sitting in the White House.
The same government that:
Wants to tax the internet?
Hmm, tax what? service delivery? Is the internet that different from other services that it, in contrast to power, water, and other utilities, it should be tax free?
Tax online shopping?
So, why should purchasing something from Amazon be tax free but going to Borders is taxed?
Tax VoIP?
Are you going to want to contact 911 services using VoIP or will you keep your cell and landline for this? Yes? Then you will need to support it.
Denies access to frequency spectrum that could currently be used more efficiently for broadband internet?
I am without enough information to respond to this.
If anything there is STILL too much goverment regulation.
Look people, there ain't no free ride. If you want something, you gotta pay for it. The fact is that government exists because there are somethings better done collectively than by everyone individually or by commercial entities. is it always the most efficient? No. But at least the first three things you cite I think have at least semirational bases and you're comment makes it sound like you just don't want to put a crowbar in your wallet and pay for it. Tell ya' what, why don't we just provide you with all these services anyway and then we'll just put the tab on your kids. Oh wait, we're already doing that....
Ok, I've got mod points but when I see comments like this, I'm torn. First, I totally agree, but second, lets be honest, its flamebait.
So, if only for the politics section, I'm pleading, please please please, give me +1 Insightful Flamebait
That's because you don't make your living off creating original IP. Music, Movies, Games, Books, Etc.
br> I'm a scientist. I create what you refer to as IP every day.
Please. Please take the time to understand the issue from the point of view of the artists. And please be mature enough to realize that not all artists are rich spoiled musicians.
I never said nor thought that they were all "rich spoiled musicians". Indeed, I would argue that small indendent creators have more to gain from a system of distribution that bypasses the typical middle men such as publishers and record labels. I have many friends that have had book or recording contracts. I think that I would have a hard time telling these individuals whose market is likely to be small for their output that they are better off with these publishers/labels than developing alternative distribution methods. P2P is one possible distribution method and one that does not obviously equate to taking the food from the mouth of creators children.
Do you believe that anything that is not a solid object should be freely copied whenever someone wants?
Nice attempt to distort my original point. No, of course I do not. Do you believe that the only and best way that creators can make a living is by allowing a small number of media companies control distribution and use of media?
Have you really spent the time to think about what that would really mean?
Yes. Have you?
Ok, I'm going to go off on a rant here.
I'm bloody well sick and tired of the piracy argument. The most succint argument about the permission culture that we are moving towards is put by Lessig in "Free Culture". We have this view that because something has value, that it equates to right. Look, if i bloody well want to share files, it is not obvious that I am "stealing" from anyone.
Example: When photography first became relatively widespread, it was not clear whether someone was in their right to take pictures of people or buildings without permission. Afterall, the photographer might be getting something of value, so perhaps they should ask permission. Now, ask yourself, what would the culture be like right now if whenever you wanted to take some vacation photos, you need to get permission? Jeez, Kodak would have been just like Napster, just aiding people trying to steal other people's value.
Remember, treating sharing as stealing someone's property is *one* system for treating intellectual property but it ain't the only one and it sure as hell ain't the one that the US has had for at least its first 180 years.
Piracy? Bloody well pisses me off whenever someone uses that term!
You guys are going nuts on trying to figure out if Sun is Pro-Linux or against it. The truth is both and neither
The situation with Sun reminds me a bit of the competing units within Sony. In many large corporations, there are divisions that are not always pulling in the same direction. Sony, for example, makes consumer electronics that can, among other things, play, record, or otherwise distribute music. The goal of this division is to make money by making this easier for the consumer. Another division of Sony distributes music and anything that makes it more difficult to record, copy or distribute "unauthorized" copies is bad and should be fought. Well, what does Sony do? Sony tries to do both, and if you listen to Sony reps, they can say one thing today and a very different thing tomorrow. They are big and they are conflicted...
Sun is at a really tough juncture and there might be global influences pushing Sun to be anti-Linux (e.g., it will eat them alive), but there are units that are supportive to varying degrees of Linux and free software. This support doesn't come from the Company as a whole but it serves a more limited constituency of that unit of Sun. Upshot? Expect lots of mixed messages but understand that many parts of Sun have been very very good to FOSS and that deserves to be recognized. Now, lets get back to bashing Sun, the company!