% ls -ld/ drwxrwxr-t 29 root admin 986 Dec 11 16:25/
This means that a Joe Blow (l)user can write to the root directory (bearing the sticky bit limitations in mind).
Wow!!!
Are you going to explain why Joe Blow's ability to create files in the root directory is a security risk, since he can only remove files that he himself owns? I hope you're not just trying to hide behind "sticky bit" jargon and lofty claims of "weakening a security model that has already had significant difficulties."
... but for this to be widely adopted 'free flight' must first exist. This allows piolts to plot there own jouneys, cutting distances and utlising more airspace.
It does, eh? I'm a little skeptical -- what do you think the difference between a "direct" routing and an old-fashioned flight on airways is? We're talking about 2-3% (borrow some charts from a pilot friend so you can see the routes that exist). "Airspace" utlization is a red herring -- collisions never happen enroute, only at takeoffs and landings.
The problem is low-altitude (approach/departure) airspace around large airports, most large airports today are near capacity. (IFR traffic, which all airline traffic is.) Free flight doesn't buy you anything for approach/departure, which is where all the delays and inefficiencies are.
You might say the advantage of "free flight" is to the pilot -- less pesky knob-twiddling as you go from segment to segment. But the computer is flying the airplane enroute regardless of whether or not they're going direct or by a published route -- the flight computers know all the routes and will fly them all automatically. A "free flight" system has to know about traffic so it can tell the autopilot to take evasive action. That stuff is really, really expensive. (Check out how much TCAS-II systems cost.) How much longer before recreational and research aviation disappears? It's already ridiculously expensive to fly.
The airlines are using this as a gambit to "own the airspace" -- make other uses of aviation prohibitively expensive so it's just airline and military flying. First transponders, then Mode C, then Mode S, and now TCAS for "free flight." (Yes, this is a rant -- but it's all true.)
I think Ansel Adams would use whatever means he had to put his ideas on the paper. And that's the important bit: it was about those large flat things to hang on the wall. His prints are just amazing to see in person. It's not just about the composition of the images (which is superb) but the execution on the paper. I'm sure a digital camera with Photoshop could be used for all the techniques he employed in the darkroom -- but you can't print them out to look like a fine platinum print on fibre paper. (Yet.)
Really? Have you looked into a Google search for the beginnings of the Sierra Club? Why do you think that one of the larger wilderness areas in the Sierra Nevada is named The Ansel Adams Wilderness?
Was there an alternative to the Cadillac with the platform on the roof? You want to take an 8x10 view camera into the hills, that's what you do. It's not like he was using it for vanity, like the current posers who buy stupid shit like Navigators and Hummers for trips to the corner store.
On his being an artist, you'll get no disagreement with me.
x;// it's "used" (referenced), but not to do anything
Sorry, not with gcc. For the first line, you get "warning: variable unused" warning either way; for the second, you get "warning: statement with no effect".
Assign a 0 (or NULL) to the variable. Or pass it to a null function. Both are hacks, and a pragma would be nice. (It sometimes happens when you comment out a section of code while debugging, gcc prints an annoying "unused variable" warning.)
Regardless of how crappy any MS OS's "security" or "stability" is, you could still have mostly excellent employees working on things that get released way too early. After all, if I or anyone else were forced to ship code as soon as it passed unit tests, the quality would be pretty crappy.
Who is this guy? The "success" of Linux may in fact depend on third-parties and device drivers for strange hardware, but Windows gets a free ride here, since MS doesn't have to worry about all that. When hardware manufacturers include Linux device drivers, and app makers automatically release Linux versions, it will kick Windows' ass. Any Unix could do this, not just Linux.
Since that's not going to happen, we should keep doing what we have been. Linux or any other free software project didn't get to where it is because of some damn MBA suits. Why do we care about some suit's judgment?
As for internet explorer... well it's straight and to the point, somthing Technology elites sometimes forget counts alot to end users.
You certainly know a lot about end users, don't you? Like how they refused to use Excel or Visio until MS bought those companies and changed their names to MS Spreadsheet and MS Slideshow Maker.
With RedHat 8 and 9 (and I suspect with every other "major" distribution) it's completely transparent. I plugged in a USB mouse wincing a bit because I knew I had a little experimentation and kernel compilation to do. Plugged it in, and goddam, it's working with X. The Canon G1 digital camera -- plugged it in, fired up gtkam -- and voila! it all works, with all the little thumbnails and all that crap. (I'd have been happy to mount it manually as an IDE drive after a little recompilation!) Hotplugging the USB mouse worked even on my laptop. I was a little surprised that installing RH9 on the laptop was a complete non-event. Linux device recognition has come a long way in the last couple of years.
The problem isnt' windows. The problem are broken machines on a network.
I'm reminded of the Saturday Night Live skit with Dan Aykroyd hawking the popular toy "Bag of Glass." Letting Joe Blow put a Micros**t machine on a broadband connection is like giving a kid a loaded gun. Of course it's Micros**t's fault -- and they're the only ones who can actually do something about it, like not making "broken by design" operating systems.
It's time to ban Micros**t machines from the Internet -- they're breaking it for the rest of us.
SMTP uses TCP. That means a SYN/ACK packet has to be able to get back to you or you can't complete the handshake. Or you have to guess the sequence number, which is in the SYN/ACK reply. If SPF gets accepted, you'll have to fix your TCP stack to not use easy-to-guess sequence numbers.
There's no reason to use an easily guessed sequence number.
I did a little experimentation, and have figured out that ZoneEdit does not allow you to put underscores in a name ("label") even though, as the "Objections Addressed" page says, according to RFC 2181 Ch. 11
[Length] restrictions
aside, any binary string whatever can be used as the label of any
resource record. Similarly, any binary string can serve as the value
of any record that includes a domain name as some or all of its value
(SOA, NS, MX, PTR, CNAME, and any others that may be added).
Implementations of the DNS protocols must not place any restrictions
on the labels that can be used. In particular, DNS servers must not
refuse to serve a zone because it contains labels that might not be
acceptable to some DNS client programs.
I've sent a message to the support address but don't really expect a reply....
The *DSL user that has bought a domain foo.bar that is hosted on a server, somewhere in the world (that doesn't allow mail relaying). And this user want to send mail that originates from the foo.bar domain.
If the user owns the foo.bar domain, s/he can use his *DSL IP number as "authorised to send email from foo.bar". As it happens, I have the scenario you describe. I have two domains, www.foo.com hosted by an ISP and www.bar.org hosted at my home DSL. Mail with domain foo.com would be allowed to come from my DSL IP.
But the number of cases where users "forge" their from lines for perfectly innocent reasons is huge. Everyone here can probably think of a few cases. Here's one to get you started: "I'm working from home today about I don't want replies to my business email sent to my home account."
You need to justify this usage. Use the Reply-To header. And if you want to pretend that you're really at work, instead of just sending email from home -- that's "tough noogies" for you. If preventing email forgery (even if occasionally innocent/beneficial) is a "disdainful anti-user mentality" you need to examine your motivations.
most users are told to use their isp as the relay for outgoing mail. this would mean that if the users travels somewhere else where their relaying server is not in the list of ips, their email would be marked as spam and be trashed
Why does this usage deserve special consideration? If an ISP allows you to send email as a different person, it is being irresponsible -- unless they actually check that you're using one of your registered identities and verify that all your registered identities really are you. In any case, this is between you and your ISP, since existing standards easily let your ISP give you this feature.
you now have to get all the people who own domains to get a list of ips together, not the most trivial thing for non technical people.
Specious. People who own domains but not able (technically speaking) to administer one hire an ISP to administer it for them. It's their ISP who will set up this IP number list for them. Just like an ISP now sets up DNS/MX entries for their customers' domains.
The only problem with this approach is that it requires everyone using SMTP to switch to using this instantaneously. This is one of those "If only they'd thought of this when first starting on SMTP, but we can't switch now" problems.
Sorry, no. Organic chemistry is carbon chemistry. For instance, the study of alkanes (hydrocarbons like octane, aka petrol/gasoline) is organic chemistry. While oxygen is present in just about all the interesting organic compunds, it is not a necessary condition. Also, "plastic" is a pretty generic term for synthetic polymers -- phenolic resins such as Bakelite, for instance, have oxygen atoms.
It can't just evaporate any more -- IBM's countersuit will have to be answered, and most likely SCO will have to pay IBM's costs.
...defendant IBM prays that this Court enter judgement in favor
of IBM and against SCO, dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice
and granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper, including costs, disbursements and attorneys' fees.
"Dismiss with extreme prejudice" would have sounded cooler.
I've got it! The real objective behind these ridiculous statements SCO is making: to consolidate and solidify support for the GPL and Linux by making large companies like IBM and SGI make public statements in support! Sure, contributing code to Linux is all very well, but until now the press releases had always been a little diffident and scattered. Now the industry is unified and strong in support of Linux and the GPL. Since the GPL hadn't been tested in court, what better way to help than by filing a completely ridiculous case against it? "The GPL is invalid because US Copyright Law only allows you to make one copy."
He may be cool for a national-level politician, but remember that he is a national-level politician. He can't stray too far from the middle of the road. Kucinich is my guy too, and I'm starting to appreciate him not being a front-runner -- that means he doesn't have to not offend a majority and can raise the "dangerous" issues. I will continue to support Kucinich, but after the primary I'll be happy to support whoever runs against Bush. Sure, crap like the DMCA will continue, but anything will be better than we what we have now. Either way, I'm impressed that a presidential campaign features Gnu -- twenty years ago I believed that Unix would not be in ordinary society in my lifetime.
Incidentally, you don't mean that it begs the question about the geek friendliness. Perhaps the situation begs for the question to be asked. To beg a question means to use the premise itself in an argument. Circular reasoning is another way to put it.
Recently, I've had the pleasant experience of ISP techs asking what OS I was using, and when I responded with "the firewall/router is Debian, my desktop is Red Hat" they've (a) been pleased they're dealing with a user who knows what an OS is and (b) gone "aah.... good. OK, in/var/log/syslog..."
Well, you could tell us the name of this competent ISP! If they treat you well, I think you might as well plug them.
For my part, I've had similar experiences with Speakeasy. There's one supported Linux distribution, but they'll try to help out with *BSDs or other distributions. If I say anything technical they drop the script and talk like normal people.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you going to explain why Joe Blow's ability to create files in the root directory is a security risk, since he can only remove files that he himself owns? I hope you're not just trying to hide behind "sticky bit" jargon and lofty claims of "weakening a security model that has already had significant difficulties."
The problem is low-altitude (approach/departure) airspace around large airports, most large airports today are near capacity. (IFR traffic, which all airline traffic is.) Free flight doesn't buy you anything for approach/departure, which is where all the delays and inefficiencies are.
You might say the advantage of "free flight" is to the pilot -- less pesky knob-twiddling as you go from segment to segment. But the computer is flying the airplane enroute regardless of whether or not they're going direct or by a published route -- the flight computers know all the routes and will fly them all automatically. A "free flight" system has to know about traffic so it can tell the autopilot to take evasive action. That stuff is really, really expensive. (Check out how much TCAS-II systems cost.) How much longer before recreational and research aviation disappears? It's already ridiculously expensive to fly. The airlines are using this as a gambit to "own the airspace" -- make other uses of aviation prohibitively expensive so it's just airline and military flying. First transponders, then Mode C, then Mode S, and now TCAS for "free flight." (Yes, this is a rant -- but it's all true.)
I think Ansel Adams would use whatever means he had to put his ideas on the paper. And that's the important bit: it was about those large flat things to hang on the wall. His prints are just amazing to see in person. It's not just about the composition of the images (which is superb) but the execution on the paper. I'm sure a digital camera with Photoshop could be used for all the techniques he employed in the darkroom -- but you can't print them out to look like a fine platinum print on fibre paper. (Yet.)
Was there an alternative to the Cadillac with the platform on the roof? You want to take an 8x10 view camera into the hills, that's what you do. It's not like he was using it for vanity, like the current posers who buy stupid shit like Navigators and Hummers for trips to the corner store.
On his being an artist, you'll get no disagreement with me.
x; // it's "used" (referenced), but not to do anything
Sorry, not with gcc. For the first line, you get "warning: variable unused" warning either way; for the second, you get "warning: statement with no effect".
Assign a 0 (or NULL) to the variable. Or pass it to a null function. Both are hacks, and a pragma would be nice. (It sometimes happens when you comment out a section of code while debugging, gcc prints an annoying "unused variable" warning.)
(Not that I have any evidence that MS does this.)
Since that's not going to happen, we should keep doing what we have been. Linux or any other free software project didn't get to where it is because of some damn MBA suits. Why do we care about some suit's judgment?
What kind of geek would not understand that (or look it up)?
Oh, wait...
You mean Talk Of The Nation's Science Friday with Ira Flatow?
With RedHat 8 and 9 (and I suspect with every other "major" distribution) it's completely transparent. I plugged in a USB mouse wincing a bit because I knew I had a little experimentation and kernel compilation to do. Plugged it in, and goddam, it's working with X. The Canon G1 digital camera -- plugged it in, fired up gtkam -- and voila! it all works, with all the little thumbnails and all that crap. (I'd have been happy to mount it manually as an IDE drive after a little recompilation!) Hotplugging the USB mouse worked even on my laptop. I was a little surprised that installing RH9 on the laptop was a complete non-event. Linux device recognition has come a long way in the last couple of years.
Seems to me it could be done just fine in userspace -- why put it in the kernel?
Maybe some sort of framework for allowing access to all devices from the network? That sounds like something hard that someone might want someday....
It's time to ban Micros**t machines from the Internet -- they're breaking it for the rest of us.
There's no reason to use an easily guessed sequence number.
*.54.65.in-addr._smtp_client.hotmail.com. TXT "spf=allow"
Just one record per netblock, not one record per IP number.
Ugh! I retract the "it requires everyone using SMTP to switch to using this instantaneously" -- should have read the SPF intro fully first.
The only problem with this approach is that it requires everyone using SMTP to switch to using this instantaneously. This is one of those "If only they'd thought of this when first starting on SMTP, but we can't switch now" problems.
Sorry, no. Organic chemistry is carbon chemistry. For instance, the study of alkanes (hydrocarbons like octane, aka petrol/gasoline) is organic chemistry. While oxygen is present in just about all the interesting organic compunds, it is not a necessary condition. Also, "plastic" is a pretty generic term for synthetic polymers -- phenolic resins such as Bakelite, for instance, have oxygen atoms.
I've got it! The real objective behind these ridiculous statements SCO is making: to consolidate and solidify support for the GPL and Linux by making large companies like IBM and SGI make public statements in support! Sure, contributing code to Linux is all very well, but until now the press releases had always been a little diffident and scattered. Now the industry is unified and strong in support of Linux and the GPL. Since the GPL hadn't been tested in court, what better way to help than by filing a completely ridiculous case against it? "The GPL is invalid because US Copyright Law only allows you to make one copy."
Incidentally, you don't mean that it begs the question about the geek friendliness. Perhaps the situation begs for the question to be asked. To beg a question means to use the premise itself in an argument. Circular reasoning is another way to put it.
For my part, I've had similar experiences with Speakeasy. There's one supported Linux distribution, but they'll try to help out with *BSDs or other distributions. If I say anything technical they drop the script and talk like normal people.