Well, in one way, you are right. RSS is a pull technology, the client has to request the feed. Very few, if any, of the "push" technologies that I have seen are in fact really just a pull. A good example of this is "push" Active Directory replication on a Windows network. As named, a server should idealy send out data without a client requesting it. Instead, in Microsoft's implementation, the client requests the push from the server, then the server sends its data. Sounds like pull technology to me.
In fact, the only push technology that comes off the top of my head right now is spam.
Well, I suppose it'd be trivial to check an see if one of the last couple hundred times you signed your name is am exact match (something I think only a macro, and not a human, could do), and if so, reject it.
I don't think the SCO case has shown anything such as what you are talking about. SCO hasn't stopped me from using linux on my machine, there are still legions of linux servers out here on the internet churning away. Last I checked, I could still download the kernel for free.
As for corporate censorship, I tend to agree with you in theory. Actualy, it happened a long time ago, with the rise of corporate backed radio and television.
AFAIK, Quantum computers have all been currently theoreticly applied to a binary computing model, using the spin of electrons as the bit storer. How would this work in tertiary, or anyother base for that matter?
I don't know. The way I look at it, there are a couple of reasons as to why IIS has more security woes than Apache.
1) Everyone loves to hate microsoft, myself included.
2) A good majority of IIS servers out there are on home computers where it's been installed and turned on by default.
3) Your typical microsoft user does not take the time to secure the whole thing down, making it a lot easier target.
4) The OSS comunity, right now, does a good job of patching their software.
5) Currently, those who use linux know how to secure their sites.
But, if you want Linux to spread, you are going to have to acknoledge the fact that people with no expertise in security are going to use it. These people won't care, as you've already seen, that a patch has been released. They are going to continue bopping along merrily until some worm deletes their partition table. And that's not even taking into account that if someone out there ever acutualy did write a flash worm, exploiting an unpublished hole in some OSS package, then no one will have time to patch any of their systems.
Get me right here, I'm not bashing Open Source. I use it, and believe that it offers a lot better product than the current options out there. I think that by giving people access to the source you will improve security because more people will discover the holes. But I also see that there are some bad assumptions here: The people who find the exploit will tell you about it, and that you'll have time to prepare yourself.
I think the point is that there are more people out there who can look through a c/c++ source and find an exploit than there are people who are competant enough with assembly to do the same job. These are the people who are going to come up with more exploits, giving your script kiddies a larger toolbox.
Wait until more people are using linux on the desktop, then you'll find out exactly how secure your system is.
Also, since Linux is open source, I would imagine that a coder looking for an exploit will have an easier go at it that they would on the windows system, where you are pretty much relying on decompiled binaries and assembly analysis.
Personaly, I can see how this could have negative effects. Sure, the guy is a spammer, and we are all not going to be very sympathetic to him. But they did just take away his livelyhood by sharing his private information. That's more than I'd want on my hands, sorry.
The best way to get rid of spam is to have better filters in place If you can reduce the ammount of people who see their spams, people won't pay them as musch to send the spam out, and hopefully it'll begin to be a less lucrative venture for someone to be in.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in one way, you are right. RSS is a pull technology, the client has to request the feed. Very few, if any, of the "push" technologies that I have seen are in fact really just a pull. A good example of this is "push" Active Directory replication on a Windows network. As named, a server should idealy send out data without a client requesting it. Instead, in Microsoft's implementation, the client requests the push from the server, then the server sends its data. Sounds like pull technology to me.
In fact, the only push technology that comes off the top of my head right now is spam.
Well, I suppose it'd be trivial to check an see if one of the last couple hundred times you signed your name is am exact match (something I think only a macro, and not a human, could do), and if so, reject it.
SCO could always run for Mayor of Washington DC.
I don't think the SCO case has shown anything such as what you are talking about. SCO hasn't stopped me from using linux on my machine, there are still legions of linux servers out here on the internet churning away. Last I checked, I could still download the kernel for free. As for corporate censorship, I tend to agree with you in theory. Actualy, it happened a long time ago, with the rise of corporate backed radio and television.
All ready dead. Will look forward to reading when their machine comes back to life.
Thanks for the info. It'll be interesting to see if anyone ever goes beyond the theoretical on this.
AFAIK, Quantum computers have all been currently theoreticly applied to a binary computing model, using the spin of electrons as the bit storer. How would this work in tertiary, or anyother base for that matter?
I'll just wait until they get an effect that can change your voice to any known person. I want to sing like Richard Nixon, only with perfect pitch!
I don't know. The way I look at it, there are a couple of reasons as to why IIS has more security woes than Apache.
1) Everyone loves to hate microsoft, myself included.
2) A good majority of IIS servers out there are on home computers where it's been installed and turned on by default.
3) Your typical microsoft user does not take the time to secure the whole thing down, making it a lot easier target.
4) The OSS comunity, right now, does a good job of patching their software.
5) Currently, those who use linux know how to secure their sites.
But, if you want Linux to spread, you are going to have to acknoledge the fact that people with no expertise in security are going to use it. These people won't care, as you've already seen, that a patch has been released. They are going to continue bopping along merrily until some worm deletes their partition table. And that's not even taking into account that if someone out there ever acutualy did write a flash worm, exploiting an unpublished hole in some OSS package, then no one will have time to patch any of their systems.
Get me right here, I'm not bashing Open Source. I use it, and believe that it offers a lot better product than the current options out there. I think that by giving people access to the source you will improve security because more people will discover the holes. But I also see that there are some bad assumptions here: The people who find the exploit will tell you about it, and that you'll have time to prepare yourself.
I think the point is that there are more people out there who can look through a c/c++ source and find an exploit than there are people who are competant enough with assembly to do the same job. These are the people who are going to come up with more exploits, giving your script kiddies a larger toolbox.
*shrug* I could be wrong, though.
Wait until more people are using linux on the desktop, then you'll find out exactly how secure your system is.
Also, since Linux is open source, I would imagine that a coder looking for an exploit will have an easier go at it that they would on the windows system, where you are pretty much relying on decompiled binaries and assembly analysis.
Personaly, I can see how this could have negative effects. Sure, the guy is a spammer, and we are all not going to be very sympathetic to him. But they did just take away his livelyhood by sharing his private information. That's more than I'd want on my hands, sorry. The best way to get rid of spam is to have better filters in place If you can reduce the ammount of people who see their spams, people won't pay them as musch to send the spam out, and hopefully it'll begin to be a less lucrative venture for someone to be in.
Just make it say: Don't you think you're being a little hard on the beaver? No bad words there.
I think I'd let it keep the rules, but change the voice to Cheech Marin.
Are not these two vote options redundant?
to spending hours trying to beat ET for the atari 2600, only to keep falling back into the pits.
April 1, 2012 Today, billions of sell phones spontaneosly combusted after the payload of a "worm" was devlivered.