I don't know when you started building systems, but it used to be (and may be still) that when you bought a mother board with an Intel CPU, you paid an MS tariff. They assumed that you would run DOS purchased or pirated.
I started building in 1989 and while I vaguely remember the rumour of this "MS tariff" that you refer to, I don't ever remember paying for it. You bought boards that supported it or not.
To be proactive would be to think "thay guy might steal passwords so I'll change the locks"
That would be classified as "over-reacting"...just because someone "might" steal passwords. I don't beleive the passwords were compromised myself. I think Cisco found someone poking around, kicked them out, and taking the proactive steps of forcing those ids touched to change before they "are" compromised.
Cisco are reacting to events, they are not being proactive.
I would have to disagree with this. They are being far from being inactive.
Proactive resetting? Can someone explain me what this actually means?
It means the password has already been reset and you have to react to the their proactivity to continue logging into the site (as noted by the email from an earlier poster). The alternative, inactive resetting, is waiting for the user to initiate the request...assuming they've even disclosed the break-in which Cisco did as well.
I got a "C" in my English classes and this makes perfect sense to me...i guess that puts you and the poster "below" the average?:P
If the mailbox or mail server is owned by the University, even if the e-mail is ultimately d/l to the student's personal computer, the service is owned by the University.
Exactly. You got it. I had just supported the phone technology using some history in addition to answering my own question. Thanks, though.:)
I would like to add that with the email service line of thought and enforcing the phone analogy (some grandfathering applies here) that with the advance of technology to support voicemail and screening calls with answering machines, voice had become a service as well, not requiring the end user equipment to utilize the product...another key element that enabled the telemarketers to come back and ring you at dinnertime.
No different really that Comcast owns your cable TV decoder, or DirecTV/DishNetwork owns the card in your satellite decoder.
Which is why they try to argue that extra connections in the house should cost more, it's their equipment that is activated. I agree, it "should" be at the d-marc, but the providers disagree. I believe this was first attempted when broadband was becoming actively popular, but soon the customers right to install their own equipment overrode any of that noise and providers now offer instructions to setting up a home network.
While you may own your phone equipment in your house, you do not own anything past the demarc (i.e., the phone box on the outside of your house).
I agree. I was actually supporting this truth...the phone company reserves their right to not complete the connection for calls to their network if their switches are receiving numerous connection requests from one source (overload aside) and for any other reason according to the "these policies can change anytime" clause. Email providers reserve the right to block the same...which is why the spammers lost.
I would have to agree with the parent, in respect to ownership. AFAIK, this has already been decided in respect to email...the owner of the domain's is the owner of the receiving equipment. In the case of businesses, this is easy...the workstations are part of the business. With the university, this would be true of the lab machines, but what of the private machines in the dorm? is the logical next question. To answer that: with phones, it requires a physical activation of the receiving equipment to initiate the original attempt at contact...I believe this to be the key elements for the privacy laws attached to land lines today. Even to bounce back to voicemail, one must electronically activate the receiving equipment to indicate the initial call. Email however does not rely on completing this initial activation of the receiving equipment. Rather what does require activation of equipment for an email is the receiving email server itself. Otherwise the initial connection is "non-delivered"...no voicemail.
Sidenote is that in the early days of telephone industry, the receiving equipment was "owned" by the telephone company (which allowed them to "rubber in" -- remember that when getting a 'free' phone for a two-year agreement, who 'owns' it? -- i digress). Later laws allowed the recipients to "own" their own equipment and ultimately led to the reasonable logic in my mentioned key element above.
As for the President's reply...so? Honestly, have we really heard much from that guy? Hell, it took four years (more?) just to setup a couple of cells to finally let them off in London. Hell, there's even speculation that Osama might be dead already from old age or something. True, we can't let our guard down for a sec, but I agree that Osama just isn't calling the shots anymore...certainly not with the same authority he had before; rather just an ineffective thug now.
I agree with your confusion and frustration about the fixation with sex. Yet with all the talk about "naturalness" and "activities that transcends cultures" since the dawn of time itself, whip that thing out on a crowded bus and see what happens.;)
Don't put this entirely on the Republican party, though...the senator introducing the bill is a Democrat and besides, the demographically defined minority-American Democrats are predominantly Christian, right? Additionaly, the "What about the children?" mantra stems from the Democrat as well (Katie Couric, Hillary, etc.). I do believe the official Republican view is to put the onus on the parents, not control or tax the shit out it.
Without wanting to be flame-bait, the Republican part engages in what I call "henry ford" freedom:
You can have any freedom you want, as long as it's Republican.
Wow, in the same breath you taketh and giveth.
Meanwhile, I personally suspect alot of the "bibles" (New Testament, Ko-ran, and others) to be pre-selected collections designed to maintain control over mass populations (animals that require larger amounts of water to maintain classified as "dirty", "sex is evil" to maintain populations control, etc.). This falls in line (IMO) with recent 18-year old laws being created to prevent 16-yr old pregnancies...understandably because birth control wasn't invented yet, still fairly new, or extremely dependent on cycles. Since the invention of "The Pill" however, society itself has been given a new look at sexuality...like a kid in a candy store. The Internet now allows us to visit that candy store anytime we want to.
Two people having sex is natural (sanitation required), but sex with animals isn't and deserves serious debate on its continued allowance...in addition to pre-adolescent sex. This may indeed be the material the Senator is having a hard time coping with. The problem is that, feeling helpless to prevent it from being published, he decides to condone it himself and tax the entire "sin" instead.
Politicians (Dems included) in general will redefine and generalize anything enjoyable as sinful/taxable, as generating new taxes is a political requirement to guarantee support for their programs. Our job is to prevent new taxes until proper management of existing ones is obtained.
So, in several countries, 1,333 is understood as 1.333 -- Would the US be one of those countries,...
When moving the decimal point in an equation, such as a fraction, you also have to move the other portion. I.e, if 1,333 is to be 1.333, then 1 is.001 to reflect.001/1.333 (doesn't look as nice.
For the record, 1/1,333 =.00075018754688672168042010502625656... "of the size of a human hair".
In TFA, Cisco themselves said that he did not disclose any new vulnerabilies... so... what is the BFD?
The BFD is that we all know that ALL software has vulnerabilities. New or old, disclosure should also be protected while within the law.
FTFA: According to several people who made it on time to the 9 a.m. presentation, Lynn began his talk with a discussion about security issues surrounding services that allow people to make Internet-based telephone calls. Then, they said, Lynn suddenly changed topics and began discussing the highly technical details of his research into the Cisco flaw, saying he would rather quit his job at ISS than keep the information from conference attendees.
In a nutshell, those in the room said Lynn demonstrated how attackers might use the security flaw to gain complete control over Cisco routers. He declined to be interviewed by me following the presentation, but security experts who heard the talk said Lynn could possibly be sued by Cisco, and perhaps even his former employer.
From you: Hey, Cisco, I have news for you. "Industry established disclosure process" != "Law"
That's just it. They follow the law, this researcher doesn't. He revealed and demonstrated RESEARCH obtained via a VENDOR as an employer with ISS. Additionally, Lynn simply pulled off a new technique from an exploit ALREADY disclosed, but currently used for different reasons. Cisco and ISS should be commended for trying to examine other techniques into existing flaws, but likely had pulled when the same research revealed the required time to develop and actually implement a good patch or perhaps a newer version of the IOS.
This researcher would reveal any exploit just to get attention with his hax0r friends at the BHC. And I think you posted your knee-jerk comment is because Cisco is a big corporation...and the fuck ups here on/. consider you "Insightful".
So, kinda like grabbing up domain names as money-grab. Hmmm....it would seem as an anti-competitive monopoly move if brought out in the open. Which might explain why it can't/won't be enforced?
Name one good reason why you wouldn't activate E911?
Because I don't want to.
Not setting it up is just like not using your seatbelt. It's there for you to use, but you choose not to.
Except you really don't get a choice when the "option" results in being treated as a "violator of the road" and a $100 ticket. After a certain amount, one will lose their license. So much for "choice" .
If you don't think the web could be killed off I'd say you're wrong there too.
I think France tried this recently (not sure how Google ened up on that one) and laughed off the global stage.
Your coin analogy just doesn't fly. There are coins today that can't be used as valid currency, but still collected.
Perhaps steam engines are outdated, but millions enjoy locomotive hobbies today.
You may be right about model rocketry, but perhaps because today's models can go further than SPUDs.
Meanwhile, it seems you want to implement the very restrictions you rail against starting with preventing OSS developers from posting their own code for others to used for their 'own' purpose, not for production.
Sorry for seeming like a troll, but it just seems you're just pissed because you tried to find something once and because someone didn't write to your specific needs, you blame the open-ness of it.
Fact is, most technology is advanced _because_ of hobbyists. Locomotives, automobiles, photography, and even computers themselves (hw AND sw) are only some examples.
Slashdot Mirror
Guess you've never heard of OS/2 Warp for PCs.
2 1&tid=136&tid=190/here, also imho.
Still sucks, imho. And good riddance http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/15/02452
Guess you've never heard of OS/2 Warp for PCs.
2 1&tid=136&tid=190/.
Still sucks, imho. And good riddance http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/15/02452
I don't know when you started building systems, but it used to be (and may be still) that when you bought a mother board with an Intel CPU, you paid an MS tariff. They assumed that you would run DOS purchased or pirated.
I started building in 1989 and while I vaguely remember the rumour of this "MS tariff" that you refer to, I don't ever remember paying for it. You bought boards that supported it or not.
Also keep in mind that Bill Gates et al. never intended to make good software.
Where's the fucking link to support your claim.
Another fucking Troll classified as Insightful...this is getting ridiculous.
Insightful, my ass...this a fucking Troll and you know it.
Fact is, you jackasses...the market IS empty except for these three OS's and guess who pwns all the damm userbase?
To be proactive would be to think "thay guy might steal passwords so I'll change the locks"
That would be classified as "over-reacting"...just because someone "might" steal passwords. I don't beleive the passwords were compromised myself. I think Cisco found someone poking around, kicked them out, and taking the proactive steps of forcing those ids touched to change before they "are" compromised.
Cisco are reacting to events, they are not being proactive.
:P
I would have to disagree with this. They are being far from being inactive.
Proactive resetting? Can someone explain me what this actually means?
It means the password has already been reset and you have to react to the their proactivity to continue logging into the site (as noted by the email from an earlier poster). The alternative, inactive resetting, is waiting for the user to initiate the request...assuming they've even disclosed the break-in which Cisco did as well.
I got a "C" in my English classes and this makes perfect sense to me...i guess that puts you and the poster "below" the average?
If the mailbox or mail server is owned by the University, even if the e-mail is ultimately d/l to the student's personal computer, the service is owned by the University.
:)
Exactly. You got it. I had just supported the phone technology using some history in addition to answering my own question. Thanks, though.
I would like to add that with the email service line of thought and enforcing the phone analogy (some grandfathering applies here) that with the advance of technology to support voicemail and screening calls with answering machines, voice had become a service as well, not requiring the end user equipment to utilize the product...another key element that enabled the telemarketers to come back and ring you at dinnertime.
No different really that Comcast owns your cable TV decoder, or DirecTV/DishNetwork owns the card in your satellite decoder.
Which is why they try to argue that extra connections in the house should cost more, it's their equipment that is activated. I agree, it "should" be at the d-marc, but the providers disagree. I believe this was first attempted when broadband was becoming actively popular, but soon the customers right to install their own equipment overrode any of that noise and providers now offer instructions to setting up a home network.
While you may own your phone equipment in your house, you do not own anything past the demarc (i.e., the phone box on the outside of your house).
I agree. I was actually supporting this truth...the phone company reserves their right to not complete the connection for calls to their network if their switches are receiving numerous connection requests from one source (overload aside) and for any other reason according to the "these policies can change anytime" clause. Email providers reserve the right to block the same...which is why the spammers lost.
I would have to agree with the parent, in respect to ownership. AFAIK, this has already been decided in respect to email...the owner of the domain's is the owner of the receiving equipment. In the case of businesses, this is easy...the workstations are part of the business. With the university, this would be true of the lab machines, but what of the private machines in the dorm? is the logical next question. To answer that: with phones, it requires a physical activation of the receiving equipment to initiate the original attempt at contact...I believe this to be the key elements for the privacy laws attached to land lines today. Even to bounce back to voicemail, one must electronically activate the receiving equipment to indicate the initial call. Email however does not rely on completing this initial activation of the receiving equipment. Rather what does require activation of equipment for an email is the receiving email server itself. Otherwise the initial connection is "non-delivered"...no voicemail.
Sidenote is that in the early days of telephone industry, the receiving equipment was "owned" by the telephone company (which allowed them to "rubber in" -- remember that when getting a 'free' phone for a two-year agreement, who 'owns' it? -- i digress). Later laws allowed the recipients to "own" their own equipment and ultimately led to the reasonable logic in my mentioned key element above.
It's a bitch when you can't see yourself because you're invisible.
Anyone remember Osama Bin Forgoten?
:P
Obviously this particular Democrat doesn't.
As for the President's reply...so? Honestly, have we really heard much from that guy? Hell, it took four years (more?) just to setup a couple of cells to finally let them off in London. Hell, there's even speculation that Osama might be dead already from old age or something. True, we can't let our guard down for a sec, but I agree that Osama just isn't calling the shots anymore...certainly not with the same authority he had before; rather just an ineffective thug now.
I agree with your confusion and frustration about the fixation with sex. Yet with all the talk about "naturalness" and "activities that transcends cultures" since the dawn of time itself, whip that thing out on a crowded bus and see what happens. ;)
Don't put this entirely on the Republican party, though...the senator introducing the bill is a Democrat and besides, the demographically defined minority-American Democrats are predominantly Christian, right? Additionaly, the "What about the children?" mantra stems from the Democrat as well (Katie Couric, Hillary, etc.). I do believe the official Republican view is to put the onus on the parents, not control or tax the shit out it.
Without wanting to be flame-bait, the Republican part engages in what I call "henry ford" freedom: You can have any freedom you want, as long as it's Republican.
Wow, in the same breath you taketh and giveth.
Meanwhile, I personally suspect alot of the "bibles" (New Testament, Ko-ran, and others) to be pre-selected collections designed to maintain control over mass populations (animals that require larger amounts of water to maintain classified as "dirty", "sex is evil" to maintain populations control, etc.). This falls in line (IMO) with recent 18-year old laws being created to prevent 16-yr old pregnancies...understandably because birth control wasn't invented yet, still fairly new, or extremely dependent on cycles. Since the invention of "The Pill" however, society itself has been given a new look at sexuality...like a kid in a candy store. The Internet now allows us to visit that candy store anytime we want to.
Two people having sex is natural (sanitation required), but sex with animals isn't and deserves serious debate on its continued allowance...in addition to pre-adolescent sex. This may indeed be the material the Senator is having a hard time coping with. The problem is that, feeling helpless to prevent it from being published, he decides to condone it himself and tax the entire "sin" instead.
Politicians (Dems included) in general will redefine and generalize anything enjoyable as sinful/taxable, as generating new taxes is a political requirement to guarantee support for their programs. Our job is to prevent new taxes until proper management of existing ones is obtained.
He forgot terrorists, tought...
That's because he's a Democrat.
So, in several countries, 1,333 is understood as 1.333 -- Would the US be one of those countries,...
.001 to reflect .001/1.333 (doesn't look as nice.
.00075018754688672168042010502625656... "of the size of a human hair".
When moving the decimal point in an equation, such as a fraction, you also have to move the other portion. I.e, if 1,333 is to be 1.333, then 1 is
For the record, 1/1,333 =
Thirth?
Threeth.
In TFA, Cisco themselves said that he did not disclose any new vulnerabilies... so... what is the BFD?
/. consider you "Insightful".
The BFD is that we all know that ALL software has vulnerabilities. New or old, disclosure should also be protected while within the law.
FTFA: According to several people who made it on time to the 9 a.m. presentation, Lynn began his talk with a discussion about security issues surrounding services that allow people to make Internet-based telephone calls. Then, they said, Lynn suddenly changed topics and began discussing the highly technical details of his research into the Cisco flaw, saying he would rather quit his job at ISS than keep the information from conference attendees. In a nutshell, those in the room said Lynn demonstrated how attackers might use the security flaw to gain complete control over Cisco routers. He declined to be interviewed by me following the presentation, but security experts who heard the talk said Lynn could possibly be sued by Cisco, and perhaps even his former employer.
From you: Hey, Cisco, I have news for you. "Industry established disclosure process" != "Law"
That's just it. They follow the law, this researcher doesn't. He revealed and demonstrated RESEARCH obtained via a VENDOR as an employer with ISS. Additionally, Lynn simply pulled off a new technique from an exploit ALREADY disclosed, but currently used for different reasons. Cisco and ISS should be commended for trying to examine other techniques into existing flaws, but likely had pulled when the same research revealed the required time to develop and actually implement a good patch or perhaps a newer version of the IOS.
This researcher would reveal any exploit just to get attention with his hax0r friends at the BHC. And I think you posted your knee-jerk comment is because Cisco is a big corporation...and the fuck ups here on
Are they now liable for all content that passes through?
Unfortunately, yes. Or at least have now put themselves in the position to be liable in the future.
Is wisptis.exe a Windows thing? I believe it's a part of Adobe, because this task is running only when I use Acrobat7
. exe.html
Unless you are on a Tablet PC, you might worry about what else you got running that shouldn't.
http://www.neuber.com/taskmanager/process/wisptis
Quit being cheap and add some memory to that machine!
So, kinda like grabbing up domain names as money-grab. Hmmm....it would seem as an anti-competitive monopoly move if brought out in the open. Which might explain why it can't/won't be enforced?
Name one good reason why you wouldn't activate E911?
Because I don't want to.
Not setting it up is just like not using your seatbelt. It's there for you to use, but you choose not to.
Except you really don't get a choice when the "option" results in being treated as a "violator of the road" and a $100 ticket. After a certain amount, one will lose their license. So much for "choice" .
They already HAD the numbers. Just pick up any phone book. Only difference now is they won't skip those with a dot next to the name.
Of course, I was calling a low-usage 911 line to make sure that it was still operational, and the operator was doing his/her job... ;)
...
I have never actually had to
You have GOT to be fucking joking me, right?
Didn't we try AI playing chess in 1989? and lost?
If you don't think the web could be killed off I'd say you're wrong there too.
I think France tried this recently (not sure how Google ened up on that one) and laughed off the global stage.
Your coin analogy just doesn't fly. There are coins today that can't be used as valid currency, but still collected.
Perhaps steam engines are outdated, but millions enjoy locomotive hobbies today.
You may be right about model rocketry, but perhaps because today's models can go further than SPUDs.
Meanwhile, it seems you want to implement the very restrictions you rail against starting with preventing OSS developers from posting their own code for others to used for their 'own' purpose, not for production.
Sorry for seeming like a troll, but it just seems you're just pissed because you tried to find something once and because someone didn't write to your specific needs, you blame the open-ness of it.
Fact is, most technology is advanced _because_ of hobbyists. Locomotives, automobiles, photography, and even computers themselves (hw AND sw) are only some examples.