Just to help out those who don't find 'megapixel' inutitive. So, given the 4:3 aspect ratio of 1600x1200, this monitor would be running at a res of about 3502x2629, so, that's what? A 17.6 x 13.2 inch monitor? So, that's 198 pixels per inch horizontal, and 199 per inch verticle. Compared to a 1600x1200 res on the same sized monitor... which would be 90 per pixel horizontal and 91 verticle. So, we're looking at about twice the clairity.:) At least, unless I screwed this up:)
That works fine, but if I recall, that would use NTLM, which sucks with regards to security. Member server authentication is not dependant upon native/mixed mode.
What is everyone so riled up about? This bars kids from playing violent video games in public places, not in the home. In the home, it's parent's responsibility, but when the kids are running around town away from their parents (as all kids do), why shouldn't they be barred from subverting their parent's wills to supervise such games? I mean, it's like no one's ever heard of restrictions on violent films, etc. This IS giving parent's control over what games their kids play, because now kids won't be able to go out and play these games after their parent's have told them that they can't; if their parents want them playing these games, they can buy them and play them in the home.
And if few gamers play these point and shoot games, why does it matter? This article sounds like it was written by a kid in Connecticut who's parents just told him that he couldn't play these games anymore.
I agree that video games probably don't have a huge impact on a child's development.
Three modifications I'd like to see made to this bill: make it cover any violence against humanoid with any weapon... and allow kids to play these games in public if their parents are present to allow it. Also, drop the age limit down to 16.
Remember, this is the guy that came up with nano-probes (that we all laughed at and called marketing garbage) and writes ALL of his stuff in ASM because of course, that is soooo much better and more efficient than a compiler. *huh*?!
This article is entertaining, but not especially informative. He bitches about Windows 2000/XP including raw sockets capabilities and says he doesn't know why - wouldn't this be so that applications can do packet mangling? (firewalls, NAT, IP Aliasing, etc?)
Re:the rant that CmdrTaco mentioned ....
on
Themes.org Cracked
·
· Score: 1
I'm curious as to the exact nature of the backdoors. Actual listening daemons, or modifications to existing daemons?
Re:the rant that CmdrTaco mentioned ....
on
Themes.org Cracked
·
· Score: 1
You're right that he never said he could... however, his message was a bit 'cocky'; that to me suggests he feels that he's in some way better than the admins. While it's true that the admin's shouldn't have been connecting from un-trusted systems, the person who took advantage of that is still in the wrong.
I wish people would get real with the OpenBSD stuff. It's secure OUT OF THE BOX... I've never heard of anyone that leaves it in the default out of the box state; most hacks don't occur via the sorts of things that get installed Out of the Box.
Re:the rant that CmdrTaco mentioned ....
on
Themes.org Cracked
·
· Score: 2
These hax0rs don't seem to realize that it's many orders of magnitude more difficult (since it's impossible) to prevent a box from being compromised. To detect a successful breakin is also FAR FAR FAR more difficult than breaking into a system. I'd would love to see this guy try to secure/admin sourceforge/apache/themes.org - he'd probably fail miserably and maybe see things from another point of view.
The article says that IBM is prepared to dump a billion dollars into Linux development this next year... but I have to ask, how do they expect to make a return on this? Are they just doing this to get an OS to power the big servers that they're selling? I mean, a billion dollars is a lot of money to recover from an investment; I'm curious as to what their plan is.
Well, the wrong perms turned out to be because of a weird umask that was set on the box, that was stopping the newly compiled binaries from getting +x.
However, the source files are still owned by non-root users:)
Both the tar.gz and the tar.bz2 files from kernel.org are broken - all the files extract being owned by non-root users and don't have the appropriate permissions (scripts and stuff aren't set +x, etc).
Is anyone else having these problems? Or is my copy of tar screwed? Or am I screwed?:)
Effectively, jabber is controlled by jabber.COM since many of the people at the core of jabber (jer, temas, etc) are involved with jabber.com (I cant remember how. Jabber 'officials' are currently discussing starting up a Jabber Foundation with members who get to vote on things. It apparently will cost upwards of $1000 to join (I saw something suggesting it may be based on size of organization)... there will also be limits on what percentage of votes one organization can get. We'll see how it goes:) Just remember that some of the people at jabber.com are the people who started jabber, so it's sort of okay for people at jabber.com to control jabber's direction:)
Re:Only thing stopping me from switching to Mozill
on
Mozilla 0.9 Out
·
· Score: 2
Try Galeon for Linux - it's based off of mozilla and does tabbing.
One of the first things that the RFC says is, "It consolidates, updates and clarifies, but doesn't add new or change existing functionality". This is not some new revolutionary mail transfer format that's going to leave existing infrastructure in the dust; its a clarification of the old system that takes into account some of the changes that have occured in the way that people use and look at e-mail. I don't think that users are going to see any change because of this new RFC, except MAYBE fewer incompatabilities with attatchments or something if client developers everywhere find they understand mail better because of this RFC.
We (a few Jabber developers interested in security) are working on using the W3C proposal for encrypted XML and content to allow for the end to end encryption of messages (of any type) between users. This support should allow for easy encrpytion of any future additions to the protocol, as well as what's already there.
A very rough draft of the proposal can be found at http://www.megaepic.com/~johnston/newencryption.tx t
Please remember it's very rough, and a little out of date - it will be updated within a week or so.
I saw a satellite re-entry (that's what it looked like, compared to known re-entries that have been filmed) over Nevada about a year and a half ago at Burning Man.
Let me tell you, it did not look like just a shooting star. It looked like a tonne of shooting stars all spreading appart burning bright. Very cool. I'll envy whoever sees Mir's re-entry, because I'll bet it's a fair bit bigger than most satellite re-entrys that have been seen before.
Can you still subnet? I mean, I dont really have a use for 2^64 addresses:) LIke, you cant really fit more than a hundred (the spec is something like 1024 isnt it?) on an ethernet network. I mean, what's the point of using addresses frivilously, when we have the technologies to easily manage addresses more efficiently?
Couldn't whatever program launches the application define the capability set of an app before the app even gets the opportunity to reliquish it's capabilities. I mean, if init runs a program that reads configuration files that define what programs to spawn and what capability set they get, it can run as root and run apps as root, but if the program sets it's inheritable capabilities set to reflect the configured capabilities... then the application being spawned wont need to be trusted to relinquish capabilities - it wont have them in the first place.
From the ACL mailing list, it looks like they're working on getting ACLs into the mainstream kernel - at least, it's talked about:) Another feature that I'd really like to see though, is file access auditing - the ability to log when particular files are opened read, opened write, actually have data written to them, etc. The closest thing that I've found to this is fam/imon by SGI; but this would require some coding to let it be used for this purpose.
I see. I assume then that inodes for directories and files are of the same structure? (have fields useful for directories, and some for files, so some dont ever get used in each role?)
I've been getting more into host security over the past few months... and especially on linux. Anyone that's at all an expert, will tell you that firewalling is only one of many measures that can improve your security; its not even a very big one. Linux is STILL waiting for ACLs, file access auditing, wide use of capabilities (and through them the reduction of the need to have root do things). ACL support in ext2 (according to a post to the linux-kernel mailing list) was dropped in exchange for large file support. You can get patches for the kernel to support ACLs in other ways (often loading ALL ACLs into kernel memory). And, appart from running something like tripwire, how are you going to know if/etc/password gets opened in write mode? or if anything but login/pam (or whatever other program) opens/etc/shadow?
Linux really needs to get these things into the official kernel. I want them! They're as important to me as firewalling. (sorry, I dont know enough C yet to write any of this within the next year or two;)
Slashdot Mirror
Stuff released under GPL is NOT public domain.
Sure we do... the summit of the americas in montreal (or was it quebec city?) a month or so back had tear gas on political protesters.
Don't worry, we use teargas against the protesters too :) (only when they get violent though, is what we're told)
Just to help out those who don't find 'megapixel' inutitive. So, given the 4:3 aspect ratio of 1600x1200, this monitor would be running at a res of about 3502x2629, so, that's what? A 17.6 x 13.2 inch monitor? So, that's 198 pixels per inch horizontal, and 199 per inch verticle. Compared to a 1600x1200 res on the same sized monitor... which would be 90 per pixel horizontal and 91 verticle. So, we're looking at about twice the clairity. :) At least, unless I screwed this up :)
That works fine, but if I recall, that would use NTLM, which sucks with regards to security. Member server authentication is not dependant upon native/mixed mode.
What is everyone so riled up about? This bars kids from playing violent video games in public places, not in the home. In the home, it's parent's responsibility, but when the kids are running around town away from their parents (as all kids do), why shouldn't they be barred from subverting their parent's wills to supervise such games? I mean, it's like no one's ever heard of restrictions on violent films, etc. This IS giving parent's control over what games their kids play, because now kids won't be able to go out and play these games after their parent's have told them that they can't; if their parents want them playing these games, they can buy them and play them in the home. And if few gamers play these point and shoot games, why does it matter? This article sounds like it was written by a kid in Connecticut who's parents just told him that he couldn't play these games anymore. I agree that video games probably don't have a huge impact on a child's development. Three modifications I'd like to see made to this bill: make it cover any violence against humanoid with any weapon... and allow kids to play these games in public if their parents are present to allow it. Also, drop the age limit down to 16.
Remember, this is the guy that came up with nano-probes (that we all laughed at and called marketing garbage) and writes ALL of his stuff in ASM because of course, that is soooo much better and more efficient than a compiler. *huh*?!
9 21 4&mode=thread
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/09/29/154
This article is entertaining, but not especially informative. He bitches about Windows 2000/XP including raw sockets capabilities and says he doesn't know why - wouldn't this be so that applications can do packet mangling? (firewalls, NAT, IP Aliasing, etc?)
I'm curious as to the exact nature of the backdoors. Actual listening daemons, or modifications to existing daemons?
You're right that he never said he could... however, his message was a bit 'cocky'; that to me suggests he feels that he's in some way better than the admins. While it's true that the admin's shouldn't have been connecting from un-trusted systems, the person who took advantage of that is still in the wrong.
I wish people would get real with the OpenBSD stuff. It's secure OUT OF THE BOX... I've never heard of anyone that leaves it in the default out of the box state; most hacks don't occur via the sorts of things that get installed Out of the Box.
These hax0rs don't seem to realize that it's many orders of magnitude more difficult (since it's impossible) to prevent a box from being compromised. To detect a successful breakin is also FAR FAR FAR more difficult than breaking into a system. I'd would love to see this guy try to secure/admin sourceforge/apache/themes.org - he'd probably fail miserably and maybe see things from another point of view.
The article says that IBM is prepared to dump a billion dollars into Linux development this next year... but I have to ask, how do they expect to make a return on this? Are they just doing this to get an OS to power the big servers that they're selling? I mean, a billion dollars is a lot of money to recover from an investment; I'm curious as to what their plan is.
Actually, it's not wholly just me :)
Other people have seen that the source extracts as owned by weird UIDs.
Well, the wrong perms turned out to be because of a weird umask that was set on the box, that was stopping the newly compiled binaries from getting +x.
:)
However, the source files are still owned by non-root users
Both the tar.gz and the tar.bz2 files from kernel.org are broken - all the files extract being owned by non-root users and don't have the appropriate permissions (scripts and stuff aren't set +x, etc).
:)
Is anyone else having these problems? Or is my copy of tar screwed? Or am I screwed?
Effectively, jabber is controlled by jabber.COM since many of the people at the core of jabber (jer, temas, etc) are involved with jabber.com (I cant remember how. Jabber 'officials' are currently discussing starting up a Jabber Foundation with members who get to vote on things. It apparently will cost upwards of $1000 to join (I saw something suggesting it may be based on size of organization)... there will also be limits on what percentage of votes one organization can get. We'll see how it goes :) Just remember that some of the people at jabber.com are the people who started jabber, so it's sort of okay for people at jabber.com to control jabber's direction :)
Try Galeon for Linux - it's based off of mozilla and does tabbing.
One of the first things that the RFC says is, "It consolidates, updates and clarifies, but doesn't add new or change existing functionality". This is not some new revolutionary mail transfer format that's going to leave existing infrastructure in the dust; its a clarification of the old system that takes into account some of the changes that have occured in the way that people use and look at e-mail. I don't think that users are going to see any change because of this new RFC, except MAYBE fewer incompatabilities with attatchments or something if client developers everywhere find they understand mail better because of this RFC.
We (a few Jabber developers interested in security) are working on using the W3C proposal for encrypted XML and content to allow for the end to end encryption of messages (of any type) between users. This support should allow for easy encrpytion of any future additions to the protocol, as well as what's already there.
x t
A very rough draft of the proposal can be found at http://www.megaepic.com/~johnston/newencryption.t
Please remember it's very rough, and a little out of date - it will be updated within a week or so.
I saw a satellite re-entry (that's what it looked like, compared to known re-entries that have been filmed) over Nevada about a year and a half ago at Burning Man. Let me tell you, it did not look like just a shooting star. It looked like a tonne of shooting stars all spreading appart burning bright. Very cool. I'll envy whoever sees Mir's re-entry, because I'll bet it's a fair bit bigger than most satellite re-entrys that have been seen before.
Can you still subnet? I mean, I dont really have a use for 2^64 addresses :) LIke, you cant really fit more than a hundred (the spec is something like 1024 isnt it?) on an ethernet network. I mean, what's the point of using addresses frivilously, when we have the technologies to easily manage addresses more efficiently?
Couldn't whatever program launches the application define the capability set of an app before the app even gets the opportunity to reliquish it's capabilities. I mean, if init runs a program that reads configuration files that define what programs to spawn and what capability set they get, it can run as root and run apps as root, but if the program sets it's inheritable capabilities set to reflect the configured capabilities... then the application being spawned wont need to be trusted to relinquish capabilities - it wont have them in the first place.
From the ACL mailing list, it looks like they're working on getting ACLs into the mainstream kernel - at least, it's talked about :) Another feature that I'd really like to see though, is file access auditing - the ability to log when particular files are opened read, opened write, actually have data written to them, etc. The closest thing that I've found to this is fam/imon by SGI; but this would require some coding to let it be used for this purpose.
I see. I assume then that inodes for directories and files are of the same structure? (have fields useful for directories, and some for files, so some dont ever get used in each role?)
I've been getting more into host security over the past few months... and especially on linux. Anyone that's at all an expert, will tell you that firewalling is only one of many measures that can improve your security; its not even a very big one. Linux is STILL waiting for ACLs, file access auditing, wide use of capabilities (and through them the reduction of the need to have root do things). ACL support in ext2 (according to a post to the linux-kernel mailing list) was dropped in exchange for large file support. You can get patches for the kernel to support ACLs in other ways (often loading ALL ACLs into kernel memory). And, appart from running something like tripwire, how are you going to know if /etc/password gets opened in write mode? or if anything but login/pam (or whatever other program) opens /etc/shadow?
Linux really needs to get these things into the official kernel. I want them! They're as important to me as firewalling. (sorry, I dont know enough C yet to write any of this within the next year or two ;)