Of course. That way I can plug it into my home LAN to easily transfer music to and from it, play remotely mounted music, and control the playlist and volume.
Ideally it would support wireless as well. I could play music off of someone else's nearby player.
Ecstacy is not known to be addictive. In fact it is counter-addictive in that subsequent doses cause a much less profound effect on the user such that many people simply lose interest.
And it is this effect that is the most interesting and quite unique to MDMA. It's deserving of more research in order to better understand the workings of the human mind.
The problem with drugs, especially with drugs like ecstacy, is that they create *permanent* changes in brain chemistry.
At extremely high doses (the kind given to lab rats), which means that the margin of safety for a normal dose is much slimmer than for example THC or LSD. No research has found permanent changes in brain chemistry from normal doses of MDMA, but it is possible that such changes exist and are not detectable by current methods.
Then you will not be using it to connect to a system of yours unless you don't very much care about its security.
We're not talking about connecting from a trusted system over an untrusted network. We're talking about a system on which you don't even know who may be able to see and control the screen and keyboard.
Care to explain how you reach THAT invalid conclusion, please?
Why do you believe that it is safe to trust a system that you have no control over and that an unknown (but large) number of people have had physical access to before you?
We could be required to connect from anywhere at any time. So how do you list all those "safe" IPs? They have to onclude hotels, Kiosks, internet cafes, etc al. Which kinda makes your "safe" list completely pointless.</i> <p> If you're allowing logins to your network from such insecure locations as kiosks and internet cafes, you don't care about security anyway.
That maybe SCO are telling the truth - that maybe there is ripped off code?
Maybe because of quotes like this from their CEO:
McBride said SCO had few options in the late 1990s as Linux began surfacing in the business computing world. "Even if you potentially had a problem [with concerns about Unix code in Linux back then], what are you going to do?" McBride asked. "Sue Linus Torvalds? And get what?"
Any half decent UNIX system (or should I say admin) would have process accounting enabled that would stop this kind of attack.
Process accounting adds overheard for minimal value (since critical information is left out, like the device/inode of the binary that was exec'd, the full command line, parent process ID, etc).
It will identify the culprit of a forkbomb, but if deliberate it will not be the individual's own account and if accidenhtal it won't allow you to take any real action against the user. It sure won't prevent a future one.
Not really. LUFS can access a machine which you have sftp access to whereas this project allows you to access the filesystem of a machine that you have true shell only access to, as is common especially in some university environments.
If the admin refuses to install ssh, have him fired. If this doesn't work, install your own copy. It need not run on the default port.
Imagine that you gave regular users permission to mount file systems.
This is already commonly done, with the/net automount. Every Linux distribution comes with software to handle this.
Then I, the evil user, mount my own/lib and invoke a suid dynamically linked program, say/bin/passwd.
You don't give every user access to mount filesystems at any location. Such filesystems would also obviously be mounted nosuid and nodev, just like/net automounts always have been.
Right now the Linux VFS places a lot of trust in the individual filesystems. A user-mounted file system could contain deliberate errors designed to confuse the Linux VFS.
Actually it might... if they show the code in question, it can be changed... then they no longer have a suit.
This is like the plaintiff in a personal injury suit refusing to see a doctor in case he might be cured and not have a reason to sue. I know that the court would not look kindly on such a case - does this sort of thing extend to SCO's lawsuits?
1) You have not stopped telnet or other services run from inetd.
2) Killall only does what you think it does on Linux. On Solaris, for instance, it does something rather more destructive.
3) getty is started from init, killing it won't help.
4) killing login will only stop people in the middle of logging in.
TechTV has a decent guide on bitrates... maybe this will help [techtv.com]. Hope that helps...
I would hardly call this a decent guide. Everything in it consists of misinformation. They claim that 128kb/s mp3 is "cd quality". They make inane statements like "The higher the bitrate, the more times per second the original sound is sampled".
What I find most interesting about this is that the article says that Sheils made over $1000 a week. That just amazes me that there are that many stupid people out there, that actually purchase products from UCE.
What I find more interesting is that trivial software was being sold for many many thousands of dollars. He must have spent $20K on software. Are spammers themselves that stupid?
But one of the coolest things it had that I haven't ever seen on the PC was a RAM drive.
In the days of DOS, you might have an 8MB system with only 640K available to applications. The remaining space could only be used for 1) the few applications that supported the high memory extensions 2) disk cache 3) ram disk. Because all of the disk caching software was so poor, a cache larger than a couple meg often hurt performance. A RAM disk was the only use for the extra memory, and in the days of floppy drives and 500KB/s hard drives, the performance difference was quite dramatic.
How do you plan on fitting 3*120 GB disks a 2100+ Athlon + heatsink and fan, 2 * cdrw drives into a standard 1RU chasis?
Obviously you need to select a machine according to your requirements. If maximum possible density is a requirement, compromises will have to be made elsewhere. For example, a system such as this one, comparable to the V120 for half the cost. If you choose to decide that this system is unsuitable due to some other previously unstated requirement, feel free to do your own research.
If maximum density is not a requirement, a 2U case would hold all of that nicely. If it really is a requirement, why not investigate boxes that have 4 Intel systems in one 1U case?
With our discount they cost us under $1k each I think. 500Mhz, 512mb RAM, 40gb disk, built in laptop style cdrom, 2 10/100 nics each.
Just by contrast, that will buy you:
$200 Athlon XP 2100 MB+CPU (with a LOT of stuff onboard) $250 1GB RAM $100 nice case $300 3*120gb HD $100 2*whatever the current fastest cdrw drive is $50 round IDE cables, video card if motherboard doesn't have onboard video
Or, perhaps more compelling, you could have bought TWO of these:
$200 same board and cpu $50 512MB RAM (pc2100, maybe) $50 case $50 cdrw drive $150 2x80gb drives
Slashdot Mirror
What OS uses a window this small by default? Why would you ever set an initial window smaller than the mss?
Of course. That way I can plug it into my home LAN to easily transfer music to and from it, play remotely mounted music, and control the playlist and volume.
Ideally it would support wireless as well. I could play music off of someone else's nearby player.
And it is this effect that is the most interesting and quite unique to MDMA. It's deserving of more research in order to better understand the workings of the human mind.
At extremely high doses (the kind given to lab rats), which means that the margin of safety for a normal dose is much slimmer than for example THC or LSD. No research has found permanent changes in brain chemistry from normal doses of MDMA, but it is possible that such changes exist and are not detectable by current methods.
Then you will not be using it to connect to a system of yours unless you don't very much care about its security.
We're not talking about connecting from a trusted system over an untrusted network. We're talking about a system on which you don't even know who may be able to see and control the screen and keyboard.
Why do you believe that it is safe to trust a system that you have no control over and that an unknown (but large) number of people have had physical access to before you?
We could be required to connect from anywhere at any time. So how do you list all those "safe" IPs? They have to onclude hotels, Kiosks, internet cafes, etc al. Which kinda makes your "safe" list completely pointless.</i>
<p>
If you're allowing logins to your network from such insecure locations as kiosks and internet cafes, you don't care about security anyway.
What's with the - in -48dc, anyway?
Maybe because of quotes like this from their CEO:
Do I have total control in this case, able to do anything I would if I owned the company as a sole proprietorship?
Process accounting adds overheard for minimal value (since critical information is left out, like the device/inode of the binary that was exec'd, the full command line, parent process ID, etc).
It will identify the culprit of a forkbomb, but if deliberate it will not be the individual's own account and if accidenhtal it won't allow you to take any real action against the user. It sure won't prevent a future one.
If the admin refuses to install ssh, have him fired. If this doesn't work, install your own copy. It need not run on the default port.
I guess that depends on whether you use the dictionary definition of race, or redefine it to suit your own agenda.
This is already commonly done, with the /net automount. Every Linux distribution comes with software to handle this.
Then I, the evil user, mount my own /lib and invoke a suid dynamically linked program, say /bin/passwd.
You don't give every user access to mount filesystems at any location. Such filesystems would also obviously be mounted nosuid and nodev, just like /net automounts always have been.
Right now the Linux VFS places a lot of trust in the individual filesystems. A user-mounted file system could contain deliberate errors designed to confuse the Linux VFS.
Huh?
But will the Gnome panel work with any window manager?
Did you check the OED to see what "well regulated" meant when it was written in the constitution?
This is like the plaintiff in a personal injury suit refusing to see a doctor in case he might be cured and not have a reason to sue. I know that the court would not look kindly on such a case - does this sort of thing extend to SCO's lawsuits?
1) You have not stopped telnet or other services run from inetd.
2) Killall only does what you think it does on Linux. On Solaris, for instance, it does something rather more destructive.
3) getty is started from init, killing it won't help.
4) killing login will only stop people in the middle of logging in.
I would hardly call this a decent guide. Everything in it consists of misinformation. They claim that 128kb/s mp3 is "cd quality". They make inane statements like "The higher the bitrate, the more times per second the original sound is sampled".
What I find more interesting is that trivial software was being sold for many many thousands of dollars. He must have spent $20K on software. Are spammers themselves that stupid?
In the days of DOS, you might have an 8MB system with only 640K available to applications. The remaining space could only be used for 1) the few applications that supported the high memory extensions 2) disk cache 3) ram disk. Because all of the disk caching software was so poor, a cache larger than a couple meg often hurt performance. A RAM disk was the only use for the extra memory, and in the days of floppy drives and 500KB/s hard drives, the performance difference was quite dramatic.
Do these work well with XFree86 under Linux?
Obviously you need to select a machine according to your requirements. If maximum possible density is a requirement, compromises will have to be made elsewhere. For example, a system such as this one, comparable to the V120 for half the cost. If you choose to decide that this system is unsuitable due to some other previously unstated requirement, feel free to do your own research.
If maximum density is not a requirement, a 2U case would hold all of that nicely. If it really is a requirement, why not investigate boxes that have 4 Intel systems in one 1U case?
How are you preventing a replay attack on this insecure link?
With our discount they cost us under $1k each I think. 500Mhz, 512mb RAM, 40gb disk, built in laptop style cdrom, 2 10/100 nics each.
Just by contrast, that will buy you:
$200 Athlon XP 2100 MB+CPU (with a LOT of stuff onboard)
$250 1GB RAM
$100 nice case
$300 3*120gb HD
$100 2*whatever the current fastest cdrw drive is
$50 round IDE cables, video card if motherboard doesn't have onboard video
Or, perhaps more compelling, you could have bought TWO of these:
$200 same board and cpu
$50 512MB RAM (pc2100, maybe)
$50 case
$50 cdrw drive
$150 2x80gb drives