Sorry, next time I read the article I'll realize that
"Other browser users will probably find it on their desktop."
doesn't mean that other browser users will probably find the file on their desktop. Oh, and I'll also realize that
"Nothing happened to me (I'm running XP at the moment), but there's a friggin ZIP file sitting on my desktop. OK, time to bring out my tin foil hat! And to the/. editors, don't link to shit like that, damn! That's just common sense."
doesn't imply unexpected behavior under Windows XP. Perhaps it doesn't do anything at all outside of those conditions, but that doesn't mean that the article and the post I replied to don't indicate otherwise.
That's interesting, I just tried it with IE, Firefox, and Opera, and all of them simply displayed the standard dialog asking to download the file. Might be worth noting I'm just running XP SP1 though.
I don't seem to remember anything in the HTTP browser string that would indicate it. Where is that information coming from, and how are they collecting it?
Just out of curiosity, what sort of data would one be able to recover after the 24th pass that would be irrecoverable after the 25th one? I mean I'm a little paranoid, but 25 times is ridiculous.
(And yes, I had the feeling someone would chime in saying that there were better tools for Linux, but I don't think most people using this service are going to be booting into anything other than Windows any time soon)
For general purposes, yeah, but if someone is intent on getting at your data, with a lot of work they can still get to it. All deleting a partition with fdisk does is destroy the partition information, so it looks like unallocated space on the drive. It never actually deletes the data.
Perhaps Microsoft should include an option, like 'Prepare this computer for resale,' which utterly destroys all data.
Actually, Windows XP has a tool similar to that, the command 'cipher/W:C:' (replace C with any drive letter), which simply fills all of the free space on a drive with '0', and then fills it with random values. Although it takes a while, it'll virtually destroy any chance of recovering permanently deleted files from the hard drive.
Not the fastest, as Sandia National Laboratories have used one of their railguns to propel a.1 gram object at 16,000 m/s (nearly 36000 miles per hour). A spacecraft is certainly larger than that though, so perhaps the greatest kinetic energy of any such collision?
Couldn't Google just follow the redirect, index the content on the redirected page, and index the URL of the redirected page too? That way a scammer trying to exploit this would find that the page they listed ends up getting ignored entirely (which might make sense for someone legitimately using a 302 as well, where they want people to use the redirected URL in the future and not the original one).
I felt exactly the same way when looking at graphics cards recently. ATi's lineup currently consists of the (Radeon) X300, X300 SE, X600 Pro, X600 XT, X700 Pro, X800, X800 Pro, X800 SE, X800 XL, X800 XT, X850 XT PE, X850 XT, and the X850 Pro (that's assuming the 9xxx cards are no longer being produced). These are just the consumer-level, desktop graphics chipsets. Furthermore, there are about 10 different companies selling cards with each one of these chipsets, so that's around 130 different cards you can buy, featuring one company's chipset, for the desktop, intended for the home enthusiast market. There are a few differences between the cards, mostly in speed and memory size, with some slighly varying features, but there is no way they could justify this many models.
"The researchers modified a traditional syringe by taking out the needle and adding a tiny piezoelectric actuator that propels the liquid out of the tube. The actuator expands or contracts in response to an applied voltage. Because the MicroJet's source of power is electrical rather than mechanical, its range of control is continuous, allowing a far higher level of customization than the jet injectors used today."
Even if they scrap the collection/analysis of data, the probes will still be transmitting, and we'll still be receiving. Why not just release information about the frequencies and protocols used, so that anyone can view the data that will get sent with or without the program. I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to collect and analyze it.
How much RAM, and what kind of video card do you have? I've found that Quake3 will run perfectly fine under XP, on the order of 150fps at high detail and 1600x1200 settings, with my 2 year old graphics card, 512MB of memory, and 2.4GHz processor (no disk striping either). I get a little bit less, around 135fps under Linux. Your problem really sounds like a configuration issue.
Well, to be honest I'm not sure I would. I actually downloaded the.NET SDK the other day, and although it did make my web browsing a little (not unusably) slower, it only took about 3 minutes. Also, a lot of people this is targeting probably are used to having a bunch of malware on their computers, so the disk activity from the installer or the slowdown of their internet connection might seem normal to them. If the viru^H^H^H^Hmalware authors really wanted to be covert about it, they could just have it wait for the mouse and keyboard to be idle for a few minutes, and start then, and if activity resumed, just throttle the download.
Well I don't know how those other companies are going to compete with the current "big two" of Wi-Fi, Linksys and Default, who are in such a fierce price-cutting scheme that you can get their services for free anyway. They have such great coverage, I think I'd rather get service from them than pay for it with my tax dollars!
Okay, just looking at the start and end points on their chart, it appears that his law has been holding up pretty well, with a 22 month overall doubling period. What is much more interesting, though, is that it looks like in fact the rate of exponential growth is increasing (or at least did in recent history), and looking at the chart from 1997 to 2003 (Pentium II to Itanium 2) gives a doubling period of only 12 and a half months.
Wrong. Although these statements are often referred to as Moore's law, they are much more accurately termed corrolaries: the "law" actually only states that the number of transistors on a chip will double every 18 months. This is after a revision process as well, since I believe the original statement used either 6 or 12 months. According to Wikipedia, in 1975 he revised his law further, to a two year doubling period.
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting, I just tried it with IE, Firefox, and Opera, and all of them simply displayed the standard dialog asking to download the file. Might be worth noting I'm just running XP SP1 though.
Someone who's going to do all that other stuff is surely going to know to disable that from within the BIOS!
Yes.
f r95_04.html
1 500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/47cfr95 .413.htm
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/47c
(See everything numbered 95.4xx)
Prohibited communications: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/12feb2004
I don't seem to remember anything in the HTTP browser string that would indicate it. Where is that information coming from, and how are they collecting it?
Actually, due to conservation of energy, all of the power consumed by the chip is converted to heat.
As if anyone is still commenting anyway.
Just out of curiosity, what sort of data would one be able to recover after the 24th pass that would be irrecoverable after the 25th one? I mean I'm a little paranoid, but 25 times is ridiculous. (And yes, I had the feeling someone would chime in saying that there were better tools for Linux, but I don't think most people using this service are going to be booting into anything other than Windows any time soon)
For general purposes, yeah, but if someone is intent on getting at your data, with a lot of work they can still get to it. All deleting a partition with fdisk does is destroy the partition information, so it looks like unallocated space on the drive. It never actually deletes the data.
Perhaps Microsoft should include an option, like 'Prepare this computer for resale,' which utterly destroys all data.
/W:C:' (replace C with any drive letter), which simply fills all of the free space on a drive with '0', and then fills it with random values. Although it takes a while, it'll virtually destroy any chance of recovering permanently deleted files from the hard drive.
Actually, Windows XP has a tool similar to that, the command 'cipher
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/04/22 12251&tid=158&tid=95&tid=103
Only dupe I managed to find with a quick Google search, so maybe we're doing better than average on this one.
How does that conflict with what I said in any way?
Not the fastest, as Sandia National Laboratories have used one of their railguns to propel a .1 gram object at 16,000 m/s (nearly 36000 miles per hour). A spacecraft is certainly larger than that though, so perhaps the greatest kinetic energy of any such collision?
Couldn't Google just follow the redirect, index the content on the redirected page, and index the URL of the redirected page too? That way a scammer trying to exploit this would find that the page they listed ends up getting ignored entirely (which might make sense for someone legitimately using a 302 as well, where they want people to use the redirected URL in the future and not the original one).
I felt exactly the same way when looking at graphics cards recently. ATi's lineup currently consists of the (Radeon) X300, X300 SE, X600 Pro, X600 XT, X700 Pro, X800, X800 Pro, X800 SE, X800 XL, X800 XT, X850 XT PE, X850 XT, and the X850 Pro (that's assuming the 9xxx cards are no longer being produced). These are just the consumer-level, desktop graphics chipsets. Furthermore, there are about 10 different companies selling cards with each one of these chipsets, so that's around 130 different cards you can buy, featuring one company's chipset, for the desktop, intended for the home enthusiast market. There are a few differences between the cards, mostly in speed and memory size, with some slighly varying features, but there is no way they could justify this many models.
And 9 years after the Nintendo 64!
(Because we all know that's where 64 bit technology really took off)
Um...I don't think people would read the article even if it wasn't slashdotted. That's not really a requirement for posting.
Even if they scrap the collection/analysis of data, the probes will still be transmitting, and we'll still be receiving. Why not just release information about the frequencies and protocols used, so that anyone can view the data that will get sent with or without the program. I'm sure plenty of people would be willing to collect and analyze it.
How much RAM, and what kind of video card do you have? I've found that Quake3 will run perfectly fine under XP, on the order of 150fps at high detail and 1600x1200 settings, with my 2 year old graphics card, 512MB of memory, and 2.4GHz processor (no disk striping either). I get a little bit less, around 135fps under Linux. Your problem really sounds like a configuration issue.
Well, to be honest I'm not sure I would. I actually downloaded the .NET SDK the other day, and although it did make my web browsing a little (not unusably) slower, it only took about 3 minutes. Also, a lot of people this is targeting probably are used to having a bunch of malware on their computers, so the disk activity from the installer or the slowdown of their internet connection might seem normal to them. If the viru^H^H^H^Hmalware authors really wanted to be covert about it, they could just have it wait for the mouse and keyboard to be idle for a few minutes, and start then, and if activity resumed, just throttle the download.
Well I don't know how those other companies are going to compete with the current "big two" of Wi-Fi, Linksys and Default, who are in such a fierce price-cutting scheme that you can get their services for free anyway. They have such great coverage, I think I'd rather get service from them than pay for it with my tax dollars!
Okay, just looking at the start and end points on their chart, it appears that his law has been holding up pretty well, with a 22 month overall doubling period. What is much more interesting, though, is that it looks like in fact the rate of exponential growth is increasing (or at least did in recent history), and looking at the chart from 1997 to 2003 (Pentium II to Itanium 2) gives a doubling period of only 12 and a half months.
Wrong. Although these statements are often referred to as Moore's law, they are much more accurately termed corrolaries: the "law" actually only states that the number of transistors on a chip will double every 18 months. This is after a revision process as well, since I believe the original statement used either 6 or 12 months. According to Wikipedia, in 1975 he revised his law further, to a two year doubling period.
No, it would just require that the criminals have a camera phone of their own with a nice color screen. Either way, it increases phone sales!