People bought the product before there were billions to market it.
The whole point of Microsoft's conviction under the anti-trust laws is that that statement is false. People bought other products and the browser was strapped to them (shafting SpyGlass systems en passant).
Microsoft claim(ed) that Bad Things would happen if you used a different browser with Windows (kind of like a car manufacturer saying "if you run your car on any other oil, it will blow up") and even forged a video in support of that, to present under oath - which is slap-bang centred on my idea of "anti-trust"; they've breached trust with the Court, their customers, enemies and allies impartially without fear, favour, warning or quarter.
In Linux, either Capabilities or the SE patches nail that down quite convincingly. You could also put the jail on a NOSUID,NOSGID partition if you were worried about crackers being able to set a SUID bit on an executable.
I'd be surprised if OpenBSD didn't take similar precautions.
Damadian intended to use MRI for tissue characterization, not imaging
Damadian did build the first MRI table, is still in the business, is still innovating, and as at now builds the best (or at least most impressive) MRI scanner available.
The other germane point is that the two awardees simply refined his invention (and then he turned around in the best GPLish style and refined theirs, and built the first working one), they did not do the original research that made the whole process possible. The beanheads who moderated the sibling comment about Marconi and television down either don't understand that or don't like it. Imaging is just detailed characterisation.
You'll notice that Damadian's not trying to bump the other two dudes off the list, evidently quite happy that they belong there - he's just affronted that the Nobel committee overlooked his contributions.
It's so much hard work getting points across to you that I'm going to stop now - but I will add an exercise-for-the-student questiun: Why do you assume so much and then argue as if you've made the correct assumption, instead of testig it yourself or actually asking? For example, why do you assume that a secondary MX is always unable to fully validate an email address?
I'm happy here in the peanut gallery, noting that several cosmologists are grossy upset at the existing theories (I note the recent appearance of another new "white-hole cosmology", for example) and waiting to see how the dust will settle.
But meanwhile, please accept a "+1, Reasonable" moderation for your response. (-:
To: renderle SPLAT gigaweb SPLOT com Subject: Rob, are you actually paid to do this? Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:53:01 +0800
Two high-profile organizations recently argued that diverse environments are inherently more secure than "monoculture" (read: Microsoft-only) environments.
...and from other sources: [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
The report's authors said the report was a reflection of their own views [...] "I wouldn't put all of the blame on Microsoft," Schneier said, "the problem is the monoculture."
From the horse's mouth, the security problem harped on in the report is explicitly the monoculture, not the Microsoft. So you've started on a misconception. Do you recover from this?
These arguments were put forward by Gartner [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
Er... what? Gartner are hardly known for being critical of Microsoft, in fact they've got an informal reputation for being on Microsoft's cheer squad, if anything.
As if to underscore their reluctance to injure or offend such a lucrative and dominant source of income, Gartner speak as little as possible to Microsoft, as such, limiting themselves to Windows. I believe this to be a mistake, since the majority of reported vulnerabilities on desktop PCs have been in Microsoft applications other than the OS - such as Outlook, Internet Explorer or IIS.
They also make it plain, regardless of motives, that their primary concern is the lack of diversity, and I quote: [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
By spreading critical business functions across multiple desktop platforms or by maintaining key operating groups on separate platforms, you can enhance your ability to keep at least some of your key personnel and processes functioning and communicating during an attack.
Perhaps Gartner have realised that there is an issue here that they need to be seen to be addressing? [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
Two strikes against Rob. But you go on to say: [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
separately, a panel hosted by the anti-Microsoft Computer & Communications Industry Association.
Also wrong (third strike), at least in origins: the report now filtered through CCIA was originally released by the diverse group of security consultants through security firm @Stake - and it seems that @Stake are so pro-Microsoft that Dan Geer, then @Stake's CTO, was fired over the publication.
This brings to mind an interesting statement from [the] President of the Verm[o]nt Library Association:
If you have to worry about what your reading list might look like to an FBI agent, you might decide to censor yourself and not read what you really want to read. And the moment you have to think about those kinds of decisions, then you are no longer truly free. -- Trina Magi
To be sure, Microsoft are not the FBI - but the principle is exactly the same.
The whole set of premises that you justify your article by are completely wrong. This essentially makes it worthless. But even if the raison d'etree had been sound, you also muck up the content:
We have yet to see a cost/benefit analysis that supports the conclusion that a heterogeneous computing environment lowers the overall threat level of a corporation, or that it is the most cost effective of the choices available to you.
A Microsoft-aimed worm took out one large local ISP's mail service for a day, and kept it lagged for about 3 days this last week. A consultant I wo
After all, practically everyone else changed their protocols to suit; and SMB was bsed on a butchered, hopelessly design-insecure version of LanMan anyway.
This kind of stupidity has a long tradition in Microsoft; for example, they took VMS, an easy-to-secure system, an gave us Windows NT.
Go and read some of the SaMBa design (and so by implication reverse engineering) documents and code comments, it'll give your eyebrows an extended holiday behind your hairline.
After you've done that, you'll probably criticise me for being too lenient on Mr Money & Co.
Working from behind NAT and with no ports open comes pretty close.
Not so good for services, BoC you can jail those, and most of them can even be put in a read-only jail. Run those services on a MIPS or Alpha box and rare indeed is the day a crack will succeed.
...then it's definitely still optional and not selected by default. My last contact with it was the opinion "we've improved the kernel to the point where Apache can go this fast in userland".
After that, you'd be delighted by whatever form of Solaris or Linux you could get your hands on.
Configuring it up requires not just a reboot, but generally also a kernel relink, and often several of them in succession, each getting you a step closer to the feature you originally wanted. More reboots than MS-Windows - feh! At least the thing's stable once you've eventually got it set up right, it's the one good thing I have to say about it.
The lasers don't bounce off anything. Angels' Pencil was powered by the reaction against the laser light leaving the ship. When the laser was pointed at something (a Kzinti ship) it simply cut through it.
Robert Forward's Flight of the Dragonfly AKA RocheWorld was more technically interesting, he even went as far as devising a frequency multiplier for the ground-based laser system, which upped the force and improved the focus.
Or if you just like the cutting aspects, try one of David Weber'sHonor Harrington series (I liked Honor of the Queen).
Perhaps even more striking and demonstrating that he was no flash in the pan, Damadian's company (FONAR) currently builds the most advanced MRI scanners available including a full 360-degree scanner with enough room in it for a full medical team (presumably using plastic and ceramic instruments).
So, yeah, you'd have to figure that something underhanded was going on.
There's nothing in your original post to indicate that one or the other is supposed to see spamtest as a special string and handle it differently.
That's probably because they don't. The checking MTA decides what subdomain (or whatever) it wants to use to flag a returning spamcheck.
First problem, it means nobody can use spamtest as a subdomain.
Wrong. And even if it was right, big whoop-ti-do!
Second problem, the mailserver has to maintain a set of open connections and track what addresses its using for recognizing return checks.
True, but better that than deciding that every dynamic IP address in the world needs blocking. Also, better that than bogging down your server doing further spam and virus scans on mail you're going to throw away anyhow.
Third problem. EvilSpammer sends a truckload of spam forged from domain Ipissoffspammers.com. Your mailserver opens a ton of return connections for every one of them as it tries to id each message and fails.
Firstly, if you had half a brain you'd be rejecting that already for "too many recipients", secondly you should be queuing those for rate-limiting just like anything else mail-related; thirdly if you didn't do the checks now you'd probably be opening those connections later anyway to bounce the mail.
And you don't see a problem with this? So if the external mail exchanges for your domain are down, nobody will receive mail from you? That's A Bad Thing(tm)
You're right, I don't see a problem with this at all. If all of your MXes are out, the occasional bounced (not lost) mail is the least of your worries. And within normal timeout limits, bounced is exactly what would happen in normal circumstances anyway; and finally, if you view the threads surrounding you'll see lots of people saying how nice it would be if they got prompt notice of a problem with the recipient instead of having their mail tarpitted for days.
It may irritate me to no end to have to deal with double bounce messages all day as the mail admin, but I'd much rather it be me than have my users dealing with truckloads of failure messages for spam that failed to deliver forged from their real address.
The "80" they showed weren't owned by SCOX, in fact they may get into breach-of-copyright trouble if certain BSD developers complain about SCOX filing off the copyrights and BSD licence banners. Which might explain why they're - to quote Linus - "playing it like the Raelians".
SCOX's claim, if you can believe this, is that because IBM, SGI et al created JFS (which I don't use), NUMA (which I don't use) etc while they were licencees for the UnixWare sources, SCOX controls the rights to those technologies. This despite at least IBM's contract explicitly leaving the rights to such works in IBM's hands even if they had been derived from the UnixWare sources (which they weren't).
I'm sort of wondering if/how SCOX got any rights to even use any of the listed technologies, since they don't hold any of the patents on them, but IBM do.
Slashdot Mirror
...at least, until you want a feature it sports. (-:
Try it, you'll be amazed. (-:
All together now: Mod Parent Up! (-:
"Security is not Job #1"
The whole point of Microsoft's conviction under the anti-trust laws is that that statement is false. People bought other products and the browser was strapped to them (shafting SpyGlass systems en passant).
Microsoft claim(ed) that Bad Things would happen if you used a different browser with Windows (kind of like a car manufacturer saying "if you run your car on any other oil, it will blow up") and even forged a video in support of that, to present under oath - which is slap-bang centred on my idea of "anti-trust"; they've breached trust with the Court, their customers, enemies and allies impartially without fear, favour, warning or quarter.
In Linux, either Capabilities or the SE patches nail that down quite convincingly. You could also put the jail on a NOSUID,NOSGID partition if you were worried about crackers being able to set a SUID bit on an executable.
I'd be surprised if OpenBSD didn't take similar precautions.
Damadian did build the first MRI table, is still in the business, is still innovating, and as at now builds the best (or at least most impressive) MRI scanner available.
The other germane point is that the two awardees simply refined his invention (and then he turned around in the best GPLish style and refined theirs, and built the first working one), they did not do the original research that made the whole process possible. The beanheads who moderated the sibling comment about Marconi and television down either don't understand that or don't like it. Imaging is just detailed characterisation.
You'll notice that Damadian's not trying to bump the other two dudes off the list, evidently quite happy that they belong there - he's just affronted that the Nobel committee overlooked his contributions.
It's so much hard work getting points across to you that I'm going to stop now - but I will add an exercise-for-the-student questiun: Why do you assume so much and then argue as if you've made the correct assumption, instead of testig it yourself or actually asking? For example, why do you assume that a secondary MX is always unable to fully validate an email address?
I'm happy here in the peanut gallery, noting that several cosmologists are grossy upset at the existing theories (I note the recent appearance of another new "white-hole cosmology", for example) and waiting to see how the dust will settle.
But meanwhile, please accept a "+1, Reasonable" moderation for your response. (-:
Subject: Rob, are you actually paid to do this?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:53:01 +0800
...and from other sources: [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
From the horse's mouth, the security problem harped on in the report is explicitly the monoculture, not the Microsoft. So you've started on a misconception. Do you recover from this?
Er... what? Gartner are hardly known for being critical of Microsoft, in fact they've got an informal reputation for being on Microsoft's cheer squad, if anything.
As if to underscore their reluctance to injure or offend such a lucrative and dominant source of income, Gartner speak as little as possible to Microsoft, as such, limiting themselves to Windows. I believe this to be a mistake, since the majority of reported vulnerabilities on desktop PCs have been in Microsoft applications other than the OS - such as Outlook, Internet Explorer or IIS.
They also make it plain, regardless of motives, that their primary concern is the lack of diversity, and I quote: [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
Perhaps Gartner have realised that there is an issue here that they need to be seen to be addressing? [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
Two strikes against Rob. But you go on to say: [-text in brackets is filler to make lame SlashDot lameness filter happier-]
Also wrong (third strike), at least in origins: the report now filtered through CCIA was originally released by the diverse group of security consultants through security firm @Stake - and it seems that @Stake are so pro-Microsoft that Dan Geer, then @Stake's CTO, was fired over the publication.
This brings to mind an interesting statement from [the] President of the Verm[o]nt Library Association:
To be sure, Microsoft are not the FBI - but the principle is exactly the same.
The whole set of premises that you justify your article by are completely wrong. This essentially makes it worthless. But even if the raison d'etree had been sound, you also muck up the content:
A Microsoft-aimed worm took out one large local ISP's mail service for a day, and kept it lagged for about 3 days this last week. A consultant I wo
This kind of stupidity has a long tradition in Microsoft; for example, they took VMS, an easy-to-secure system, an gave us Windows NT.
Go and read some of the SaMBa design (and so by implication reverse engineering) documents and code comments, it'll give your eyebrows an extended holiday behind your hairline.
After you've done that, you'll probably criticise me for being too lenient on Mr Money & Co.
If he closed his own Port 80, the world would be a better place. (-:
The joke was kind of foreseeable, but your actual delivery was more tongue-in-cheek than a woodpecker. Well done.
BTW, Anti-"M$" Bash-Fests are misnamed because BASH is not a Microsoft product, and I'm not even sure that you get it with SFU.
Working from behind NAT and with no ports open comes pretty close.
Not so good for services, BoC you can jail those, and most of them can even be put in a read-only jail. Run those services on a MIPS or Alpha box and rare indeed is the day a crack will succeed.
...but in answer to the body of your post, I'll see you and raise you a Python and a Ruby.
...then it's definitely still optional and not selected by default. My last contact with it was the opinion "we've improved the kernel to the point where Apache can go this fast in userland".
After that, you'd be delighted by whatever form of Solaris or Linux you could get your hands on.
Configuring it up requires not just a reboot, but generally also a kernel relink, and often several of them in succession, each getting you a step closer to the feature you originally wanted. More reboots than MS-Windows - feh! At least the thing's stable once you've eventually got it set up right, it's the one good thing I have to say about it.
And all of the userland tools suck like a Kirby.
Because now that the source is available, it'll have a half-life of millions of years?
Er, next request?
The lasers don't bounce off anything. Angels' Pencil was powered by the reaction against the laser light leaving the ship. When the laser was pointed at something (a Kzinti ship) it simply cut through it.
Robert Forward's Flight of the Dragonfly AKA RocheWorld was more technically interesting, he even went as far as devising a frequency multiplier for the ground-based laser system, which upped the force and improved the focus.
Or if you just like the cutting aspects, try one of David Weber's Honor Harrington series (I liked Honor of the Queen).
...after which this is kind of like asking "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?"
He did actually invent MRI; Paul Lauterbur made a refinement in imaging technique and Peter Mansfield made improvements to the analysis of the raw data, so the absence of his name is indeed singular. More so because Damadian actually built the first working scanner, holds the patent on MRI (and 39 other patents too), and built the first commercial MRI scanner.
Perhaps even more striking and demonstrating that he was no flash in the pan, Damadian's company (FONAR) currently builds the most advanced MRI scanners available including a full 360-degree scanner with enough room in it for a full medical team (presumably using plastic and ceramic instruments).
So, yeah, you'd have to figure that something underhanded was going on.
...here, and get lotsa other stuff like Scribus thrown in.
That's probably because they don't. The checking MTA decides what subdomain (or whatever) it wants to use to flag a returning spamcheck.
Wrong. And even if it was right, big whoop-ti-do!
True, but better that than deciding that every dynamic IP address in the world needs blocking. Also, better that than bogging down your server doing further spam and virus scans on mail you're going to throw away anyhow.
Firstly, if you had half a brain you'd be rejecting that already for "too many recipients", secondly you should be queuing those for rate-limiting just like anything else mail-related; thirdly if you didn't do the checks now you'd probably be opening those connections later anyway to bounce the mail.
You're right, I don't see a problem with this at all. If all of your MXes are out, the occasional bounced (not lost) mail is the least of your worries. And within normal timeout limits, bounced is exactly what would happen in normal circumstances anyway; and finally, if you view the threads surrounding you'll see lots of people saying how nice it would be if they got prompt notice of a problem with the recipient instead of having their mail tarpitted for days.
Tough luck, it's happening already.
The "80" they showed weren't owned by SCOX, in fact they may get into breach-of-copyright trouble if certain BSD developers complain about SCOX filing off the copyrights and BSD licence banners. Which might explain why they're - to quote Linus - "playing it like the Raelians".
SCOX's claim, if you can believe this, is that because IBM, SGI et al created JFS (which I don't use), NUMA (which I don't use) etc while they were licencees for the UnixWare sources, SCOX controls the rights to those technologies. This despite at least IBM's contract explicitly leaving the rights to such works in IBM's hands even if they had been derived from the UnixWare sources (which they weren't).
I'm sort of wondering if/how SCOX got any rights to even use any of the listed technologies, since they don't hold any of the patents on them, but IBM do.