The attack involves patching particular Windows system files in RAM during the boot process, which explains why physical access is required, and why it doesn't work after a reboot. The attacker loads an app from a CD-ROM which then itself executes the normal Windows boot process while agressively patching software in memory. This also isn't a windows-specific vulnerability: any OS which does not checksum memory contents each time they're read is vulnerable.
Undoubtably, yes. I was thinking more in terms of tone and being character-led than "objectionable content" or whatever the catch-all term for sex and violence is these days.
"Gross" is how much raw cash came in to theatres themselves. "Budget" is how much was spent on the production itself. Those are the opposite ends of a very long distribution chain, and cinema has developed an efficient system for soaking up money in its way from box office to producer.
Silly Dr. Manhattan. You could've just remembered you watching it in the future, and not bothered going. Except then you wouldn't have seen it, so you'd have to go, and then you would have seen it, so you don't have to go and...
Please excuse the double-post of this below, I clicked away and didn't see the comment come up when I revisisted so I assumed I hadn't gone past "preview".
The success of The Matrix Reloaded and TDK challenged conventional wisdom about the tone (character-led, cerebral, and dark) and content (R-rated) that a big-budget movie could have and still draw the crowds, arguably opening the door to the Watchmen we saw in theatres. Had TDK flopped, I suspect Watchmen would've gone back for reshoots or had heavy cuts. Watchmen's own flop is likely to justify conventional wisdom to movie executives, closing that door and leading to more conservative production in future. What then for Iron Man 2's mooted alcoholism subplot?
It was argued that movies like TDK showed that a darker, more serious summer movie could fill seats and rake in cash, and likewise a few years ago The Matrix Reloaded was making money hand over fist long after the hype train was derailed, in spite of an R rating and a relatively cerebral (most would say pretentiously so) story. Both successes challenged conventional wisdom about the summer blockbuster and probably opened the door for Watchmen to a degree.* I worry that Watchmen's unimpressive gross will convince studios to close that door again and be more conservative with content and tone on their big-ticket movies. Where then for Iron Man 2's mooted alcoholism subplot?
*I know Watchmen was in production by the time TDK arrived in 2008, but a lot could've been left on the cutting-room floor if the studio had seen that year's adult superhero movie flop.
Unfortunately it varies for entirely predictable reasons. At my UK university, while there are plenty of postgraduate or specialist texts compared to demand, there are usually at most three copies of anything, which is insufficient for undergraduate classes in the hundreds. Therefore year after year there's a stack of new editions of the basic texts in the book shop which are eagerly snapped up. I imagine the publishers wouldn't be happy if the university bought 200 of the current edition every five years.
Actually there aren't. You're limited by what radioisotopes can actually do. You can have a long-lived RTG that gives a miserable power output per kilo, or a high-power one that drops to half-power within ten minutes, then quarter power after another ten, and is useless within an hour. There's no magic radioisotope out there that gives off an intense neutron flux yet doesn't decay.
If they'd followed due dilligence and gone to the CSIRO and licenced the technology, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether the CSIRO deserved patent royalties for this technology that they "never implemented". You feel that the CSIRO is not obliged to royalties for this discovery because of the mistaken perception that they've just dreamed up this patent dispute as a way of extracting cash from companies which happen to accidentally cross onto their IP turf. That's usually the case with patent trolls, but this isn't a patent troll. They invented it, at their expense, and they were ripped off.
They invented the technology to which they own the patent. How should they recoup the public and private money that went into of years of fundimental research that led to that discovery, besides licencing it out? You want them to spend umpteen more years dreaming up a product that they can stick a bit of fundimental research into, just because you have an objection to scientists recouping some of their hard work?
An RTG? A technology which even now can give you maybe a few horsepower of raw heat per hundred pounds of RTG weight when made, which has a fuel cost of thousands of dollars per gram, for which power declines geometrically with capacity and which has sky-high waste disposal costs? Will you suggest burning gold-plated babies next?
That's advice on how to automate scanning a large network of machines for infections. There's a trivial method for confirming that Conficker is present on a machine if you don't mind spending five minutes in front of it typing in URLs, and tools to remove it quite easily.
My understanding is that the illegality of tampering with others' computers would forbid them from "employing a spectrum of disruptive tactics" inside the botnet, in much the same sense that the illegality of blowing up people's houses stops cops from spending all day recreating Lethal Weapon. Certainly the "illegality defense" (where relevant) would be in effect should the botnet operators or their clients ever be prosecuted.
I imagine a heavy-set bald man standing in his office with a chair held above his head, ready to strike an rubber tree, when the messenger arrives. He pauses, bewildered, and softly puts the chair down to sit pensively, shaken to his very core.
Honestly I'm not sure OEMs are actually going to go for it as a product. Whenever a new version of Windows launches they fall over themselves to sell behind-the-curve PCs "supporting" feature X, Y, and Z simply because those features have been added to the OS, and Win7 Starter denies them that opportunity.
Slashdot Mirror
The attack involves patching particular Windows system files in RAM during the boot process, which explains why physical access is required, and why it doesn't work after a reboot. The attacker loads an app from a CD-ROM which then itself executes the normal Windows boot process while agressively patching software in memory. This also isn't a windows-specific vulnerability: any OS which does not checksum memory contents each time they're read is vulnerable.
What was left in was pretty much recreated shot-for-shot, line-for-line though.
Undoubtably, yes. I was thinking more in terms of tone and being character-led than "objectionable content" or whatever the catch-all term for sex and violence is these days.
Thanks anyway!
Unfortunately we're an out-of-town campus with a big on-campus population, and no used book shop. We need a bigger bulletin board.
"Gross" is how much raw cash came in to theatres themselves. "Budget" is how much was spent on the production itself. Those are the opposite ends of a very long distribution chain, and cinema has developed an efficient system for soaking up money in its way from box office to producer.
Silly Dr. Manhattan. You could've just remembered you watching it in the future, and not bothered going. Except then you wouldn't have seen it, so you'd have to go, and then you would have seen it, so you don't have to go and...
This is just a repost of my comment up above, I thought I'd not posted it correctly.
Please excuse the double-post of this below, I clicked away and didn't see the comment come up when I revisisted so I assumed I hadn't gone past "preview".
The success of The Matrix Reloaded and TDK challenged conventional wisdom about the tone (character-led, cerebral, and dark) and content (R-rated) that a big-budget movie could have and still draw the crowds, arguably opening the door to the Watchmen we saw in theatres. Had TDK flopped, I suspect Watchmen would've gone back for reshoots or had heavy cuts. Watchmen's own flop is likely to justify conventional wisdom to movie executives, closing that door and leading to more conservative production in future. What then for Iron Man 2's mooted alcoholism subplot?
It was argued that movies like TDK showed that a darker, more serious summer movie could fill seats and rake in cash, and likewise a few years ago The Matrix Reloaded was making money hand over fist long after the hype train was derailed, in spite of an R rating and a relatively cerebral (most would say pretentiously so) story. Both successes challenged conventional wisdom about the summer blockbuster and probably opened the door for Watchmen to a degree.* I worry that Watchmen's unimpressive gross will convince studios to close that door again and be more conservative with content and tone on their big-ticket movies. Where then for Iron Man 2's mooted alcoholism subplot?
*I know Watchmen was in production by the time TDK arrived in 2008, but a lot could've been left on the cutting-room floor if the studio had seen that year's adult superhero movie flop.
Why am I getting moderated informative/insightful? Is this "random karma day"? :/
Unfortunately it varies for entirely predictable reasons. At my UK university, while there are plenty of postgraduate or specialist texts compared to demand, there are usually at most three copies of anything, which is insufficient for undergraduate classes in the hundreds. Therefore year after year there's a stack of new editions of the basic texts in the book shop which are eagerly snapped up. I imagine the publishers wouldn't be happy if the university bought 200 of the current edition every five years.
Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.
If I were to break into your house and delete everything off every bit of magnetic or flash media, I think you'd disagree.
Actually there aren't. You're limited by what radioisotopes can actually do. You can have a long-lived RTG that gives a miserable power output per kilo, or a high-power one that drops to half-power within ten minutes, then quarter power after another ten, and is useless within an hour. There's no magic radioisotope out there that gives off an intense neutron flux yet doesn't decay.
If they'd followed due dilligence and gone to the CSIRO and licenced the technology, we wouldn't be having a discussion about whether the CSIRO deserved patent royalties for this technology that they "never implemented". You feel that the CSIRO is not obliged to royalties for this discovery because of the mistaken perception that they've just dreamed up this patent dispute as a way of extracting cash from companies which happen to accidentally cross onto their IP turf. That's usually the case with patent trolls, but this isn't a patent troll. They invented it, at their expense, and they were ripped off.
They invented the technology to which they own the patent. How should they recoup the public and private money that went into of years of fundimental research that led to that discovery, besides licencing it out? You want them to spend umpteen more years dreaming up a product that they can stick a bit of fundimental research into, just because you have an objection to scientists recouping some of their hard work?
If these giants have had to settle I wonder what the smaller companies will be made to... (glasses)... didgeree-do. (YEAH!)
I suppose there's just one possibility here, you started writing two possibilities and accidentally added a third or conficker done it.
An RTG? A technology which even now can give you maybe a few horsepower of raw heat per hundred pounds of RTG weight when made, which has a fuel cost of thousands of dollars per gram, for which power declines geometrically with capacity and which has sky-high waste disposal costs? Will you suggest burning gold-plated babies next?
That's advice on how to automate scanning a large network of machines for infections. There's a trivial method for confirming that Conficker is present on a machine if you don't mind spending five minutes in front of it typing in URLs, and tools to remove it quite easily.
My understanding is that the illegality of tampering with others' computers would forbid them from "employing a spectrum of disruptive tactics" inside the botnet, in much the same sense that the illegality of blowing up people's houses stops cops from spending all day recreating Lethal Weapon. Certainly the "illegality defense" (where relevant) would be in effect should the botnet operators or their clients ever be prosecuted.
I imagine a heavy-set bald man standing in his office with a chair held above his head, ready to strike an rubber tree, when the messenger arrives. He pauses, bewildered, and softly puts the chair down to sit pensively, shaken to his very core.
Honestly I'm not sure OEMs are actually going to go for it as a product. Whenever a new version of Windows launches they fall over themselves to sell behind-the-curve PCs "supporting" feature X, Y, and Z simply because those features have been added to the OS, and Win7 Starter denies them that opportunity.