The crux of the matter is we WILL become extinct unless we either: a) find a way to harness resources and develop technologies that will last us indefinately on this planet, or b) leave this planet
Every living organism has a 'desire' (or maybe it's written into it's DNA) to survive and has mechanisms to ensure it does.
When we destroy animal habitat, the inhabitants can either die out or adapt and find a new place to live and breed. Seeing as far as we know we are the only species to know about the risks of being confined to a single planet it makes sense we try to expand our territory just like any other animal would.
Living in space would be difficult, but i'm sure given time evolution will give us ways to make it easier.
Isn't most hacking more to do with 'social engineering' and thinking your way around obsticles than actual hardcore programming or math?
Programmers are common, im sure given enough info any well matured programmer could write an exploitative piece of code...it's finding the holes that's the real skill...no?
The infected DNS servers are re-directing users from popular sites such as Google or American Express to malware infecting advertising sites.
Did a text search on the presentation. There is no mention of Google being targetted. Infact big G is only mentioned in the "What exactly is DNS cache poisoning?" section.
Welcome to/. where our Gmail is more important to us than our bank balance.:P
What i'd like to see is search engines utilising my websites own search facility on it's own.
Google, for example, never indexes everything, but could easily extend it's "More results from " hyperlinks to access my website's own engine, for example/search.xml, like it already checks for the existance of indexing guidelines in robots.txt.
This would mean search engines index lots of very complete indexes instead of trying to index the entire web from the HTML and only managing to create a partial index.
[/blockquote][I]...but the irony of California's mandatory notification law is that the thief may now know they have something even more valuable[/I][/blockquote]
And in another twist of fate the theif is a hardcore slashdotter.
Imho, that non-media/personal blog content (parent-> 'mind-numbing drivel'), be it may often mundane, shouldn't be seen as a waste of the author or readers time. Assuming content is an accurate and honest transcription of someones thoughts, it is the of the utmost arrogance, and very narrow-minded, to consider it totally worthless.
Not meaning too be harsh toward anonymous parent but maybe you think your life is more void of 'mind-numbing drivel' than most?
I for one would rather read many different peoples insight into something...anything at all, even their breakfast...than see the same syndicated news story on three dozen blogs.
By not making the sales of knives illegal you are trusted in society to do no harm with one. Likewise, in purchasing a music CD the only thing really preventing you from copying the CD is your own morals and by using wrongfully, by copying a CD for a friend, he or she has effectively stolen from the label/artist, assuming that is that your friend may have likely purchased the CD not given the free offer from you.
With knives it's not possible to prevent damage caused by your immoral actions, simply because noone knows to whom your going to damage and therefore it's a bit difficult to write anything into law in terms of protection, only punishment.
With music on the other hand, it's completely clear whom you may or may not be hurting when you distribute the works. So laws should be in place to protect these people, and imho they should have the right to revoke 'fair use' and say 'hey no! thats mine, i only want Mr X and Mrs Y to hear it, Not the nosey neighbour who wants to write a review of it'.
Of course, 100% by a tiny smidge of artists probably couldn't give a crap about anything 'fair use' allows by default.
But why should law lay down these default priviledges and assumptions?
Isn't the encryption on them DVDs an indication that the copyright holders (ignoring Mr. DVD man in the middle) doesn't want you to duplicate his stuff, even for 'personal use'?
Hey, take care of them DVD's. You broke them, tough titty. Most things you buy you can't conveniently duplicate and tuck away safely. Imho, this 'personal backup' lark is nonsense.
I wonder how many people statistically actually do burn off copies of their CD's for safekeeping, or archive to Mp3/Ogg/Ac3 for anything other than convenient listening?
I've typed far too much:}
Once you get down to something gritty like copyright you end up back in the playground with arguments similar to 'But he took my stuff!' and 'But I had it first!'.
I suspect this would be modded redundant given the chance, but thanks for the info on Canada, I will read up on canadian rulings and how your law came to be with interest.
I think it sounds like Canada said said 'Sod it, we're making it legal. End of discussion. Goto bed!'
By not making the sales of knives illegal you are trusted in society to do no harm with one. Likewise, in purchasing a music CD the only thing really preventing you from copying the CD is your own morals and by using wrongfully, by copying a CD for a friend, he or she has effectively stolen from the label/artist, assuming that is that your friend may have likely purchased the CD not given the free offer from you.
With knives it's not possible to prevent damage caused by your immoral actions, simply because noone knows to whom your going to damage and therefore it's a bit difficult to write anything into law in terms of protection, only punishment.
With music on the other hand, it's completely clear whom you may or may not be hurting when you distribute the works. So laws should be in place to protect these people, and imho they should have the right to revoke 'fair use' and say 'hey no! thats mine, i only want Mr X and Mrs Y to hear it, Not the nosey neighbour who wants to write a review of it'.
Of course, 100% by a tiny smidge of artists probably couldn't give a crap about anything 'fair use' allows by default.
But why should law lay down these default priviledges and assumptions?
Isn't the encryption on them DVDs an indication that the copyright holders (ignoring Mr. DVD man in the middle) doesn't want you to duplicate his stuff, even for 'personal use'?
Hey, take care of them DVD's. You broke them, tough titty. Most things you buy you can't conveniently duplicate and tuck away safely. Imho, this 'personal backup' lark is nonsense.
I wonder how many people statistically actually do burn off copies of their CD's for safekeeping, or archive to Mp3/Ogg/Ac3 for anything other than convenient listening?
I've typed far too much:}
Once you get down to something gritty like copyright you end up back in the playground with arguments similar to 'But he took my stuff!' and 'But I had it first!'.
I suspect this would be modded redundant given the chance, but thanks for the info on Canada, I will read up on canadian rulings and how your law came to be with interest.
I think it sounds like Canada said said 'Sod it, we're making it legal. End of discussion. Goto bed!'
I did not agree to any license when purchasing the cd, all i have to follow is canadian copyright law.
When you purchase anything are you not entering a legally binding contract? If you buy a knife law forbids you to go stab someone to death with it... but you don't have to sign anything to say you won't.
Law protects the rights of the copyright holder and as a citizen you are expected to abide by the law.
'Fair use' to me only dictates certain assumptions on behalf of the copyright holder, and I don't think your friend making a copy for himself would be legal. You paid for the right to own a COPY, and have the right to replicate a further copy for YOUR own personal use in order to protect your property (the copy) from damage or loss.
However, knowing nothing of Canadian law, I would be interested in seeing any legal references you can find to prove me wrong.
In canada, i can borrow my friend's CD collection and legally make a copy of every single CD for my personal listening. M/i>
When you purchase a copy of a CD (or any copywritten work) the artists have released it under license and have a right to say how their work is distributed and duplicated..no different to software.
It isn't quite that simple, as surely the contract artists sign with their record label give the label rights to relicense the material providing they don't give away any rights they weren't given themselves.
The way I see it, law should be there to protect your rights so you can benefit from your work not dictate what is fair use of your work.
If you don't want your lyrics dictated on www.azlyrics.com thats your right too. But there are some things that just can't be enforced and taken for granted.
Fair use is a set of assumptions. Law defining these should explicitly stated that once a copyright holder has made his or her wishes clear, 'fair use' for that work can be withdrawn or replaced.
I can also download songs online, (kazaa etc) as long as i dont upload any, also totally legally.
To download, the other party has to be uploading. Which makes you an accomplice in a transaction which violates someones wishes in copyright, which are protected by law.
music 'piracy' is legal here
It's 'legal' in that we can manipulate some law to take our POV. But it's also totally immoral.
I think it should be noted that alot of the things parent mentions are optional at installation time, and a modified installation script could emulate exactly that...Except IE of course.
I was bored once and tried to create a Javascript page that'd refresh and post the visitors system time to the server and calculate the difference between the server and client time to the millisecond (assuming all the reload times etc remain pretty constant), and use it attempt to say "hello ".
I was trying to settle an argument with a friend that I could track him on my site even if he used various proxies.
The technique only worked for a while. And then the difference tended to drift.After a few hours the visitor couldn't be recognised anymore.
I know this is a highly simplified example but wouldn't the clock drift and inaccuracies in time keeping foul up this detection eventually?
Passively obtaining the 'clock skew'/rate of drift etc across the net doesn't seem sufficiently accurate to uniquely identify a machine.
"offering an alternative to Mapquest with what some might describe as a very much improved user interface, offering a cleaner layout, drop shadows, clickable waypoints and keyboard controls"
Great let me know when it's available to Google UK..along with a dozen other Google toys
Presumeably this zombie virus needs to extract the mail server host name from e-mail software you already have installed.
This surely means that It can only be effective if you have a piece of email software it's been programmed to be able to jack the info from.
Isn't it a little worrying that other programs can access this information without you noticing? Shouldn't these e-mail programs store your settings more securely?
If e-mail softwares do indeed store your username and password securely, why do most ISP's not require authenticated SMTP? (My ISP doesn't)
My point is you can't blame the user for everything.
Personally, when I first started surfing the web (c. 1997) I used Altavista. I don't remember when I first discovered Google. It was a fast change, so much so I just subconciously accepted it's superiority.
Strange though, at some point in the last few months I've created a Search Engine folder my bookmarks and managed to fill it up... now how did that happen?
There are three reasons I hang onto IE over Firefox and Opera (I have both for web dev)
1. Web developement so my sites work in IE 2. Windows Update (No Automatic updates in Windows 2000?) 3. If you 'remove' IE6 under Windows 2000 you will find Windows Explorer can be used as a web browser and is equivalent to IE5. You can't truly remove IE from the OS (please somebody prove me wrong).
Slashdot Mirror
The crux of the matter is we WILL become extinct unless we either:
a) find a way to harness resources and develop technologies that will last us indefinately on this planet, or
b) leave this planet
Personally I think a is less likely than b.
What's with this human desire to always survive?
Every living organism has a 'desire' (or maybe it's written into it's DNA) to survive and has mechanisms to ensure it does.
When we destroy animal habitat, the inhabitants can either die out or adapt and find a new place to live and breed. Seeing as far as we know we are the only species to know about the risks of being confined to a single planet it makes sense we try to expand our territory just like any other animal would.
Living in space would be difficult, but i'm sure given time evolution will give us ways to make it easier.
Why not just make and race robot camels?
Isn't most hacking more to do with 'social engineering' and thinking your way around obsticles than actual hardcore programming or math?
Programmers are common, im sure given enough info any well matured programmer could write an exploitative piece of code...it's finding the holes that's the real skill...no?
I think from a companies perspective an anonymous know-it-all is more dangerous than an employee who blogs with a good sense of objectivity.
How would you feel if some John Doe is out there criticising the hell out of your business in the media?
Provided you aren't giving away trade secrets, company plans, or calling higher ranks names, most people will take some fair comment.
Did a text search on the presentation. There is no mention of Google being targetted. Infact big G is only mentioned in the "What exactly is DNS cache poisoning?" section.
Welcome to
'fraid not.
What i'd like to see is search engines utilising my websites own search facility on it's own.
/search.xml, like it already checks for the existance of indexing guidelines in robots.txt.
Google, for example, never indexes everything, but could easily extend it's "More results from " hyperlinks to access my website's own engine, for example
This would mean search engines index lots of very complete indexes instead of trying to index the entire web from the HTML and only managing to create a partial index.
[/blockquote][I]...but the irony of California's mandatory notification law is that the thief may now know they have something even more valuable[/I][/blockquote] And in another twist of fate the theif is a hardcore slashdotter.
Imho, that non-media/personal blog content (parent-> 'mind-numbing drivel'), be it may often mundane, shouldn't be seen as a waste of the author or readers time. Assuming content is an accurate and honest transcription of someones thoughts, it is the of the utmost arrogance, and very narrow-minded, to consider it totally worthless.
Not meaning too be harsh toward anonymous parent but maybe you think your life is more void of 'mind-numbing drivel' than most?
I for one would rather read many different peoples insight into something...anything at all, even their breakfast...than see the same syndicated news story on three dozen blogs.
By not making the sales of knives illegal you are trusted in society to do no harm with one. Likewise, in purchasing a music CD the only thing really preventing you from copying the CD is your own morals and by using wrongfully, by copying a CD for a friend, he or she has effectively stolen from the label/artist, assuming that is that your friend may have likely purchased the CD not given the free offer from you.
:}
With knives it's not possible to prevent damage caused by your immoral actions, simply because noone knows to whom your going to damage and therefore it's a bit difficult to write anything into law in terms of protection, only punishment.
With music on the other hand, it's completely clear whom you may or may not be hurting when you distribute the works. So laws should be in place to protect these people, and imho they should have the right to revoke 'fair use' and say 'hey no! thats mine, i only want Mr X and Mrs Y to hear it, Not the nosey neighbour who wants to write a review of it'.
Of course, 100% by a tiny smidge of artists probably couldn't give a crap about anything 'fair use' allows by default.
But why should law lay down these default priviledges and assumptions?
Isn't the encryption on them DVDs an indication that the copyright holders (ignoring Mr. DVD man in the middle) doesn't want you to duplicate his stuff, even for 'personal use'?
Hey, take care of them DVD's. You broke them, tough titty. Most things you buy you can't conveniently duplicate and tuck away safely. Imho, this 'personal backup' lark is nonsense.
I wonder how many people statistically actually do burn off copies of their CD's for safekeeping, or archive to Mp3/Ogg/Ac3 for anything other than convenient listening?
I've typed far too much
Once you get down to something gritty like copyright you end up back in the playground with arguments similar to 'But he took my stuff!' and 'But I had it first!'.
I suspect this would be modded redundant given the chance, but thanks for the info on Canada, I will read up on canadian rulings and how your law came to be with interest.
I think it sounds like Canada said said 'Sod it, we're making it legal. End of discussion. Goto bed!'
By not making the sales of knives illegal you are trusted in society to do no harm with one. Likewise, in purchasing a music CD the only thing really preventing you from copying the CD is your own morals and by using wrongfully, by copying a CD for a friend, he or she has effectively stolen from the label/artist, assuming that is that your friend may have likely purchased the CD not given the free offer from you. With knives it's not possible to prevent damage caused by your immoral actions, simply because noone knows to whom your going to damage and therefore it's a bit difficult to write anything into law in terms of protection, only punishment. With music on the other hand, it's completely clear whom you may or may not be hurting when you distribute the works. So laws should be in place to protect these people, and imho they should have the right to revoke 'fair use' and say 'hey no! thats mine, i only want Mr X and Mrs Y to hear it, Not the nosey neighbour who wants to write a review of it'. Of course, 100% by a tiny smidge of artists probably couldn't give a crap about anything 'fair use' allows by default. But why should law lay down these default priviledges and assumptions? Isn't the encryption on them DVDs an indication that the copyright holders (ignoring Mr. DVD man in the middle) doesn't want you to duplicate his stuff, even for 'personal use'? Hey, take care of them DVD's. You broke them, tough titty. Most things you buy you can't conveniently duplicate and tuck away safely. Imho, this 'personal backup' lark is nonsense. I wonder how many people statistically actually do burn off copies of their CD's for safekeeping, or archive to Mp3/Ogg/Ac3 for anything other than convenient listening? I've typed far too much :}
Once you get down to something gritty like copyright you end up back in the playground with arguments similar to 'But he took my stuff!' and 'But I had it first!'.
I suspect this would be modded redundant given the chance, but thanks for the info on Canada, I will read up on canadian rulings and how your law came to be with interest.
I think it sounds like Canada said said 'Sod it, we're making it legal. End of discussion. Goto bed!'
When you purchase anything are you not entering a legally binding contract? If you buy a knife law forbids you to go stab someone to death with it... but you don't have to sign anything to say you won't.
Law protects the rights of the copyright holder and as a citizen you are expected to abide by the law.
'Fair use' to me only dictates certain assumptions on behalf of the copyright holder, and I don't think your friend making a copy for himself would be legal. You paid for the right to own a COPY, and have the right to replicate a further copy for YOUR own personal use in order to protect your property (the copy) from damage or loss.
However, knowing nothing of Canadian law, I would be interested in seeing any legal references you can find to prove me wrong.
When you purchase a copy of a CD (or any copywritten work) the artists have released it under license and have a right to say how their work is distributed and duplicated..no different to software.
It isn't quite that simple, as surely the contract artists sign with their record label give the label rights to relicense the material providing they don't give away any rights they weren't given themselves.
The way I see it, law should be there to protect your rights so you can benefit from your work not dictate what is fair use of your work.
If you don't want your lyrics dictated on www.azlyrics.com thats your right too. But there are some things that just can't be enforced and taken for granted.
Fair use is a set of assumptions. Law defining these should explicitly stated that once a copyright holder has made his or her wishes clear, 'fair use' for that work can be withdrawn or replaced.
To download, the other party has to be uploading. Which makes you an accomplice in a transaction which violates someones wishes in copyright, which are protected by law.
It's 'legal' in that we can manipulate some law to take our POV. But it's also totally immoral.
But hey I love my Piolet too.
Why doesn't the slashcode include something like this...
/ g;
$post =~ si/http:\/\/([^\/]+)\/?/http:\/\/$1.nyud.net:8090
My perl isn't so good..but wouldn't that be ever so trivial?
I think it should be noted that alot of the things parent mentions are optional at installation time, and a modified installation script could emulate exactly that. ..Except IE of course.
I wish mirrordot would cache linked pages. A depth of 1 within the same domain would do wonders.
I was bored once and tried to create a Javascript page that'd refresh and post the visitors system time to the server and calculate the difference between the server and client time to the millisecond (assuming all the reload times etc remain pretty constant), and use it attempt to say "hello ".
I was trying to settle an argument with a friend that I could track him on my site even if he used various proxies.
The technique only worked for a while. And then the difference tended to drift.After a few hours the visitor couldn't be recognised anymore.
I know this is a highly simplified example but wouldn't the clock drift and inaccuracies in time keeping foul up this detection eventually?
Passively obtaining the 'clock skew'/rate of drift etc across the net doesn't seem sufficiently accurate to uniquely identify a machine.
Are there any dynamic length hash/one-way encryption functions out there? Would these provide greater collision prevention than SHA-1?
Why are hashes like CRC-32, MD5 and SHA-1 fixed length anyway?
http://www.google.com/search?q=2^80+/+2^69&sourcei d=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
"The findings are that SHA-1 is not collision free"
Since when is it possible to have a collision free hash when the hashed data has more possibile bit combinations than the hash itself?
Genuine question.
Great let me know when it's available to Google UK..along with a dozen other Google toys
Presumeably this zombie virus needs to extract the mail server host name from e-mail software you already have installed. This surely means that It can only be effective if you have a piece of email software it's been programmed to be able to jack the info from. Isn't it a little worrying that other programs can access this information without you noticing? Shouldn't these e-mail programs store your settings more securely? If e-mail softwares do indeed store your username and password securely, why do most ISP's not require authenticated SMTP? (My ISP doesn't) My point is you can't blame the user for everything.
Personally, when I first started surfing the web (c. 1997) I used Altavista. I don't remember when I first discovered Google. It was a fast change, so much so I just subconciously accepted it's superiority.
Strange though, at some point in the last few months I've created a Search Engine folder my bookmarks and managed to fill it up... now how did that happen?
There are three reasons I hang onto IE over Firefox and Opera (I have both for web dev)
1. Web developement so my sites work in IE
2. Windows Update (No Automatic updates in Windows 2000?)
3. If you 'remove' IE6 under Windows 2000 you will find Windows Explorer can be used as a web browser and is equivalent to IE5. You can't truly remove IE from the OS (please somebody prove me wrong).