I can just picture it now... the resolution gets improved, windows gets installed, a blind person gets a driver's license and the blue screen of death gets a new meaning.
WEP & WPA are mostly just encryption layers (maybe some authentication as well). After the encryption is cracked then you can watch all the traffic being transmitted to and from the access point. Wireless cards are still network cards, so they still use MAC addresses to determine which card responds to which packets. If the MAC address wasn't transmitted then the access point couldn't block people by it. AFAIK, the MAC address is encrypted with the rest of the packet, but the process of cracking WEP encryption is passive, so someone could just crack it and packet sniff to find out the MAC addresses that are allowed.
MAC addresses are really easy to change, especially in windows, so it isn't very good security. All someone has to do is sniff to find out what your MAC address is, and then wait until you're computer is off the network (or they could start injecting packets, but that'd be more difficult). It should keep most undetermined people out though.
I'm a newbie with Linux, so I didn't know that. I just get frusturated at how much effort it take to, for instance, mount a usb flash drive. In Windows it happens automatically, in BeOS it happens automatically or you can right click on your drive icon, go to mount, and click it. In Linux, after searching for the procedure for a while, the best method I found was to reboot into root, run a few (rather non-intuitive) commands on the command line, reboot again and essentially repeat that to undo it. While I like Linux's security and the power of the command line, I don't like it to hinder me that much, or have the command line compensate for something that should be in the GUI.
There are a couple multiuser modifications of BeOS, but I don't think Zeta has them (I run PhOS which is multiuser). User permissions aren't enforced, and anyone with physical access to your computer can do anything. Of course, all operating systems (AFAIK, including Linux and Windows) aren't really secure to a person with physical access (editing one file is all it takes), so I doubt it matters too much. As for networking, BeOS R5 shipped with a rather buggy, insecure network layer. Dano, the unofficial beta which Zeta and PhOS are based off of, came with the BONE network layer. It looks like a Unix networking clone, so I'd guess it is quite secure. BeOS also has all ports closed by default, and the built-in FTP & telnet servers only support one user if enabled. BeOS was designed to be used as a desktop, so while it can act as a server, it isn't as good as Linux in that regard.
Well, having both OSes installed on my machine I definately appreciate the faster boot time (which can be even faster if you remove unneeded drivers). For instance, for a desktop machine I like to shutdown even now and then, to let my laptop cool off, or to transport it, or to boot Windows to play a game. In Linux, while I may be a newbie, I find myself rebooting fairly often so I can login as root to do something. With BeOS, I don't have to, and I don't think I've seen it crash yet except for driver issues (when I was installing it) and beta programs running under high priority that use 100% CPU.
Actually, it's migrating to Open Source. The Haiku project is rewriting the entire OS and AFAIK Zeta uses their code whenever they can, just like the other BeOS distributions.
I've heard of people getting their BeOS boot time down to 3 seconds by removing drivers and things. Of course, if you leave it running then I haven't seen it crash on its own yet. The only time I have seen BeOS crash is when there are driver issues, or some very beta software running with high priority locks it up.
Well, get PhOS if you want something that's got essentially everthing Zeta has, plus multiuser, and free. Both are based on the same version of BeOS (Dano) so I doubt you'll find many differences.
When I used to have prefetching programs and a modem they usually slowed down my browsing. Why? Because prefetching waits until the current page loads before it starts. Then it starts loading all these other pages that are currently downloading when I click a link. So I usually end-up waiting for the pages to finish preloading before I can get to a new page.
Hence the reason I chose not to applied there. Their need-based financial aid isn't exactly generous. My mom makes (I think) $36,000, and is about to retire, and my Dad is retired. Estimated family contribution... $26,000. So that definitely influenced my decision to go to a school that did offer merit-based aid. If you're poor then this policy rules, and if you're rich it doesn't matter. The only people that suffer are the middle class.
I wouldn't call it all out, but it was close. In an all-out war you don't care about the enemy losses or collateral damage. If it had been one then the two atomic bombs would have been dropped at nearly the same time, and one would have been on Tokyo. German would have been next (when another was made) and I doubt a surrender would have been accepted. After the war is over you divide up the lands of the conquered enemy and either exterminate its civilians or relocate them so your own can settle in their former country. An all out war would be if America decided to turn Afganistan (or whatever country) into a radioactive wasteland. I doubt that the world could survive an all-out war between technologically advanced nations, and I doubt that the citizens of such a nation would condone it. But I guess if it's for survival then anything goes, so I wouldn't say an all-out war could never happen.
When was the last time that a war was fought all-out between technologically advance nations? WWII? Even then the US waited three days before dropping the second atomic bomb, so I wouldn't even call that all-out. It's not like America and the USSR were trying to exterminate each other during the cold war. If either side went all-out in those wars then I doubt we'd have a habitable planet to live on.
Well, I doubt that that would be as effective of a strategy today, since our offensive technology can make mince-meat of any defense. If capturing the target is impossible, we now have bombs that could destroy it in one blast. It doesn't matter how many people you have if what you're defending gets destroyed. Of course, I doubt the rest of the world would like it very much if the US just started blowing up anything that became a problem, but I also doubt that the US population would stand for it either (collateral damage/uninhabitable area left over).
The thing about China & the US is that we have the Pacific ocean between us, so the war would be won by aerial and naval strength (and the power/accuracy of missiles and bombs). If China could get its troops in a position to attack then the US would probably be screwed, but I don't think that is likely (I doubt they could get or hold naval supremacy long enough to transport the troops). Of course, I'm glad that we spend as much on the military as we do, since it prevents anyone from mounting a realistic attack (as in an invasion or attempt at extermination, not terrorism), and it prevents another cold war from happening. What'd make the world interesting would be if someone could develop a powerful enough defensive technology to neutralize the disproportionate gain of offensive power since WWII.
Hmm... The US population is a little under 300 million, the Chinese population is well over a billion. I'm too lazy to look up exact numbers, but China definitely has more manpower in their military. Who'd win in an all-out war? Anyone who thinks superior technology can't overcome a difference in numbers shouldn't comment on warfare. Numbers only matter if there's a ridiculous difference, or if the two sides have essentially the same technology.
I'm guessing it's a similar effect to stopping a small video file to read a sign or something. Since the quallity isn't perfect you can't really make out the letters, but if the movie's playing then you can.
Well, that just about crushed my dream of seeing a T-rex cloned... If that.1% rate was constant then that'd mean that only ~10^-63 % of the original DNA would be left. Of course, I assume that this rate would goes down as the molecule gets smaller and smaller, so hopefully some DNA is salvagable, and if enough tissue was preserved it might still be possible to reconstruct a decent part of the T-rex genome. Good thing it's a T-rex and not something unheard of, otherwise I doubt people would go to the trouble of doing something like this if it's possible.
Well, I consider malware anything that I don't want and have trouble getting rid of (come to think of it IE almost falls in this category). If malware were alive then it'd be probably called a parasite. Spyware makers could very well argue that they aren't trying to harm anything. It may slow down your computer (just as any running program will) and show ads, but obviously some people find the ads helpful because they buy stuff from them. And if the spyware is properly written then it won't break anything, so it technically isn't doing any harm.
Yep, and that was the day that I switched to MyRealBox. Now I use cjb.net's subdomain forwarding to send stuff to GMail (so everything gets archived) which forwards everything to MyRealBox.
Slashdot Mirror
Kinda makes you wonder what would happen if he paid in $500 or $1000 bills?
I can just picture it now... the resolution gets improved, windows gets installed, a blind person gets a driver's license and the blue screen of death gets a new meaning.
WEP & WPA are mostly just encryption layers (maybe some authentication as well). After the encryption is cracked then you can watch all the traffic being transmitted to and from the access point. Wireless cards are still network cards, so they still use MAC addresses to determine which card responds to which packets. If the MAC address wasn't transmitted then the access point couldn't block people by it. AFAIK, the MAC address is encrypted with the rest of the packet, but the process of cracking WEP encryption is passive, so someone could just crack it and packet sniff to find out the MAC addresses that are allowed.
MAC addresses are really easy to change, especially in windows, so it isn't very good security. All someone has to do is sniff to find out what your MAC address is, and then wait until you're computer is off the network (or they could start injecting packets, but that'd be more difficult). It should keep most undetermined people out though.
Hmmm... this system + virus = gamer genocide?
I'm a newbie with Linux, so I didn't know that. I just get frusturated at how much effort it take to, for instance, mount a usb flash drive. In Windows it happens automatically, in BeOS it happens automatically or you can right click on your drive icon, go to mount, and click it. In Linux, after searching for the procedure for a while, the best method I found was to reboot into root, run a few (rather non-intuitive) commands on the command line, reboot again and essentially repeat that to undo it. While I like Linux's security and the power of the command line, I don't like it to hinder me that much, or have the command line compensate for something that should be in the GUI.
There are a couple multiuser modifications of BeOS, but I don't think Zeta has them (I run PhOS which is multiuser). User permissions aren't enforced, and anyone with physical access to your computer can do anything. Of course, all operating systems (AFAIK, including Linux and Windows) aren't really secure to a person with physical access (editing one file is all it takes), so I doubt it matters too much. As for networking, BeOS R5 shipped with a rather buggy, insecure network layer. Dano, the unofficial beta which Zeta and PhOS are based off of, came with the BONE network layer. It looks like a Unix networking clone, so I'd guess it is quite secure. BeOS also has all ports closed by default, and the built-in FTP & telnet servers only support one user if enabled. BeOS was designed to be used as a desktop, so while it can act as a server, it isn't as good as Linux in that regard.
Well, having both OSes installed on my machine I definately appreciate the faster boot time (which can be even faster if you remove unneeded drivers). For instance, for a desktop machine I like to shutdown even now and then, to let my laptop cool off, or to transport it, or to boot Windows to play a game. In Linux, while I may be a newbie, I find myself rebooting fairly often so I can login as root to do something. With BeOS, I don't have to, and I don't think I've seen it crash yet except for driver issues (when I was installing it) and beta programs running under high priority that use 100% CPU.
Actually, it's migrating to Open Source. The Haiku project is rewriting the entire OS and AFAIK Zeta uses their code whenever they can, just like the other BeOS distributions.
I've heard of people getting their BeOS boot time down to 3 seconds by removing drivers and things. Of course, if you leave it running then I haven't seen it crash on its own yet. The only time I have seen BeOS crash is when there are driver issues, or some very beta software running with high priority locks it up.
Well, get PhOS if you want something that's got essentially everthing Zeta has, plus multiuser, and free. Both are based on the same version of BeOS (Dano) so I doubt you'll find many differences.
When I used to have prefetching programs and a modem they usually slowed down my browsing. Why? Because prefetching waits until the current page loads before it starts. Then it starts loading all these other pages that are currently downloading when I click a link. So I usually end-up waiting for the pages to finish preloading before I can get to a new page.
Hence the reason I chose not to applied there. Their need-based financial aid isn't exactly generous. My mom makes (I think) $36,000, and is about to retire, and my Dad is retired. Estimated family contribution... $26,000. So that definitely influenced my decision to go to a school that did offer merit-based aid. If you're poor then this policy rules, and if you're rich it doesn't matter. The only people that suffer are the middle class.
I wouldn't call it all out, but it was close. In an all-out war you don't care about the enemy losses or collateral damage. If it had been one then the two atomic bombs would have been dropped at nearly the same time, and one would have been on Tokyo. German would have been next (when another was made) and I doubt a surrender would have been accepted. After the war is over you divide up the lands of the conquered enemy and either exterminate its civilians or relocate them so your own can settle in their former country. An all out war would be if America decided to turn Afganistan (or whatever country) into a radioactive wasteland. I doubt that the world could survive an all-out war between technologically advanced nations, and I doubt that the citizens of such a nation would condone it. But I guess if it's for survival then anything goes, so I wouldn't say an all-out war could never happen.
When was the last time that a war was fought all-out between technologically advance nations? WWII? Even then the US waited three days before dropping the second atomic bomb, so I wouldn't even call that all-out. It's not like America and the USSR were trying to exterminate each other during the cold war. If either side went all-out in those wars then I doubt we'd have a habitable planet to live on.
Well, I doubt that that would be as effective of a strategy today, since our offensive technology can make mince-meat of any defense. If capturing the target is impossible, we now have bombs that could destroy it in one blast. It doesn't matter how many people you have if what you're defending gets destroyed. Of course, I doubt the rest of the world would like it very much if the US just started blowing up anything that became a problem, but I also doubt that the US population would stand for it either (collateral damage/uninhabitable area left over).
The thing about China & the US is that we have the Pacific ocean between us, so the war would be won by aerial and naval strength (and the power/accuracy of missiles and bombs). If China could get its troops in a position to attack then the US would probably be screwed, but I don't think that is likely (I doubt they could get or hold naval supremacy long enough to transport the troops). Of course, I'm glad that we spend as much on the military as we do, since it prevents anyone from mounting a realistic attack (as in an invasion or attempt at extermination, not terrorism), and it prevents another cold war from happening. What'd make the world interesting would be if someone could develop a powerful enough defensive technology to neutralize the disproportionate gain of offensive power since WWII.
Hmm... The US population is a little under 300 million, the Chinese population is well over a billion. I'm too lazy to look up exact numbers, but China definitely has more manpower in their military. Who'd win in an all-out war? Anyone who thinks superior technology can't overcome a difference in numbers shouldn't comment on warfare. Numbers only matter if there's a ridiculous difference, or if the two sides have essentially the same technology.
I'd be more tempted to rig the snooze button with a device to electrify the bed springs...
Yeah, sure, like a 150 million year old chicken...
I'm guessing it's a similar effect to stopping a small video file to read a sign or something. Since the quallity isn't perfect you can't really make out the letters, but if the movie's playing then you can.
Someone with any modern disease that affects reptiles?
Well, that just about crushed my dream of seeing a T-rex cloned... If that .1% rate was constant then that'd mean that only ~10^-63 % of the original DNA would be left. Of course, I assume that this rate would goes down as the molecule gets smaller and smaller, so hopefully some DNA is salvagable, and if enough tissue was preserved it might still be possible to reconstruct a decent part of the T-rex genome. Good thing it's a T-rex and not something unheard of, otherwise I doubt people would go to the trouble of doing something like this if it's possible.
Well, I consider malware anything that I don't want and have trouble getting rid of (come to think of it IE almost falls in this category). If malware were alive then it'd be probably called a parasite. Spyware makers could very well argue that they aren't trying to harm anything. It may slow down your computer (just as any running program will) and show ads, but obviously some people find the ads helpful because they buy stuff from them. And if the spyware is properly written then it won't break anything, so it technically isn't doing any harm.
Yep, and that was the day that I switched to MyRealBox. Now I use cjb.net's subdomain forwarding to send stuff to GMail (so everything gets archived) which forwards everything to MyRealBox.