You're wrong. Portable blocks are allocated all the time. ARIN always disclaims that any block they allocate is globally routeable, however. But they disclaim that for all blocks, including the old ones allocated in ancient times. So the next allocation of a/19 has the same guarantee of portability that 4/8 does: none at all.
In the interestss of accuracy, according to the article, it's just one station (not "stations") that is having this problem.
Music companies which use copy protection may be denying the artists under contract to them legitimate play time on radio stations, if the happenings at one outfit are any indication.
Furthermore, the problem is easily remedied with the purchase of a $59 standalone CD player. I bet they could get a listener to donate one.
The station in question has no standalone CD players, just desktop PCs (all running Windows 2000) and a couple of old Denon CD Cart players.
Is this a cutting-edge use of technology, or a cutting-costs use of technology?
That's why Intel got a patent. I mean... DUH! This means AMD would have to license the technology from their competitor Intel, if they wanted to cripple their CPUs in the same way.
Why they would want to do that is beside the point. Intel's patent is what prevents AMD from just copying it if they want to.
Anyway, there are some notable advantages to a system like Palladium. Theoretically, it could enable certain types of applications that aren't possible today which involve trusting the client.
I already trust me. What I need is a way to trust my computer with all this DRM crap coming out. Got any ideas on that?
freeweb.org redirects to freeweb.intereva.it, a news site in Italian. Got a more recent link to this Freeweb of yours? Sounds interesting, but I can't find its current home through Google.
You have to write that 7000 Gb to 1000 tapes first. That will take MUCH longer than 24 hours, since you are limited to the speed of your SCSI bus and the speed and capacity of your tape robot.
That's nice. I can't even find out if this flaw is exploitable on my non-x86 platforms. ISS didn't bother to test non-x86 platforms. According to their release, "others" might be affected. But there is no information on how to test my systems for this vulnerability, so how can I tell if the patch is effective on my platform? It seems nobody but me is going to bother to check this. Is it now "In DHS and ISS We Trust?"
No scanner, no tester, no exploit code, no help. Thanks ISS and DHS! I feel so much better with this new process.
Has anyone located specifics about this exploit? Is there a scanner or tester, or exploit code available? The ISS release says it is "readily exploitable on x86 architecture systems, and may be exploitable on others as well."
Sounds to me like they only tested on x86, and assume that it's exploitable on other platforms (a reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). I run one of the "others" and want to know if my installation is vulnerable, since it is a significant effort to build, test and install an upgrade so quickly. Furthermore, I want to know if the update removes the vulnerability. It is not possible for me to do any of this without sample exploit code, or a utility to scan/test for it.
Can anyone provide me with information about this? Posters to Bugtraq have been reluctant to provide this information, but I require it.
Negative. Anyone can distribute patches to qmail without violating the qmail license (duh, since you authored the patch, it's your software to license as you see fit). The license only forbids distributing binaries built from patched source, or distributing the patched source itself.
Especially a nastygram that vouches for the allegations made "under penalty of perjury."
What a moron! I would definitely be filing a complaint to enforce that provision if this had happened to me.
Ringworld motion picture
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Larry, special effects and CGI have progressed to the point where Ringworld could finally be credibly realized on the big screen. Is there any possiblity of rescuing it from the rights limbo it has wandered into?
A CGI rendition of Nessus could make Gollum look as ordinary as Sean Astin was in Rudy. Speaker would be a kick to realize on CGI as well.
So what's the story, is there any hope of a Ringworld movie?
If you're going to so radically redesign email to thwart spammers, why not just redesign it so that the sender is responsible for message storage until the recipient elects to retrieve it? That will kill spammers dead. No one will retrieve their crap (except for the 0.001% that actually respond). Spammers will go over quota if they use their ISP's mail spool, and will have to pay for all their own storage if they use their own server farm. Open relays become a non-issue. If you allow people to promiscuously utilize your mail server you alone pay for the consequences, and no one else does.
Dan Bernstien, a somewhat famous eccentric programmer, has just such a proposal: Internet Mail 2000.
Slashdot Mirror
Here in the USA, judges have known since the creation of our country that speach (sic) needs to be protected.
As well as spelled correctly.
You're wrong. Portable blocks are allocated all the time. ARIN always disclaims that any block they allocate is globally routeable, however. But they disclaim that for all blocks, including the old ones allocated in ancient times. So the next allocation of a /19 has the same guarantee of portability that 4/8 does: none at all.
In the interestss of accuracy, according to the article, it's just one station (not "stations") that is having this problem.
Music companies which use copy protection may be denying the artists under contract to them legitimate play time on radio stations, if the happenings at one outfit are any indication.
Furthermore, the problem is easily remedied with the purchase of a $59 standalone CD player. I bet they could get a listener to donate one.
The station in question has no standalone CD players, just desktop PCs (all running Windows 2000) and a couple of old Denon CD Cart players.
Is this a cutting-edge use of technology, or a cutting-costs use of technology?
Let's hope AMD doesn't try to copy this...
That's why Intel got a patent. I mean... DUH! This means AMD would have to license the technology from their competitor Intel, if they wanted to cripple their CPUs in the same way.
Why they would want to do that is beside the point. Intel's patent is what prevents AMD from just copying it if they want to.
These are the type of people who NEED everything to work as smoothly out of the box as possible, with few or no questions.
Actually, it sounds like it is YOU who need something to make all those people stop bothering you.
Anyway, there are some notable advantages to a system like Palladium. Theoretically, it could enable certain types of applications that aren't possible today which involve trusting the client.
I already trust me. What I need is a way to trust my computer with all this DRM crap coming out. Got any ideas on that?
freeweb.org redirects to freeweb.intereva.it, a news site in Italian. Got a more recent link to this Freeweb of yours? Sounds interesting, but I can't find its current home through Google.
Oh wait - here it is on Sourceforge. Doh!
You forgot reason #9:
Nobody serves anything important from a Mac.
But some huge high performance sites use load-balancing webstar.
Name it, or be seen by everyone here as one who blows hot air.
Regardless, no mac has ever been rooted in history of the internet, except with a strange 3rd party tool in 1995.
So basically, you're saying no Mac has ever been hacked, except for the ones that were hacked.
Uhh... right.
Religion is all bunk. - Thomas Edison
You have to write that 7000 Gb to 1000 tapes first. That will take MUCH longer than 24 hours, since you are limited to the speed of your SCSI bus and the speed and capacity of your tape robot.
That's nice. I can't even find out if this flaw is exploitable on my non-x86 platforms. ISS didn't bother to test non-x86 platforms. According to their release, "others" might be affected. But there is no information on how to test my systems for this vulnerability, so how can I tell if the patch is effective on my platform? It seems nobody but me is going to bother to check this. Is it now "In DHS and ISS We Trust?"
No scanner, no tester, no exploit code, no help. Thanks ISS and DHS! I feel so much better with this new process.
How is that not a fault in GLIBC? BSD errno() hasn't changed semantics in years.
Has anyone located specifics about this exploit? Is there a scanner or tester, or exploit code available? The ISS release says it is "readily exploitable on x86 architecture systems, and may be exploitable on
others as well."
Sounds to me like they only tested on x86, and assume that it's exploitable on other platforms (a reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless). I run one of the "others" and want to know if my installation is vulnerable, since it is a significant effort to build, test and install an upgrade so quickly. Furthermore, I want to know if the update removes the vulnerability. It is not possible for me to do any of this without sample exploit code, or a utility to scan/test for it.
Can anyone provide me with information about this? Posters to Bugtraq have been reluctant to provide this information, but I require it.
Negative. Anyone can distribute patches to qmail without violating the qmail license (duh, since you authored the patch, it's your software to license as you see fit). The license only forbids distributing binaries built from patched source, or distributing the patched source itself.
djb is maintaining qmail? I thought he considered it to be finished (imagine that - a software job that was actually completed :).
What asswipes. The ISS website's 404 page requires fscking JAVASCRIPT? And this is a security company? What morons!!
Especially a nastygram that vouches for the allegations made "under penalty of perjury."
What a moron! I would definitely be filing a complaint to enforce that provision if this had happened to me.
Larry, special effects and CGI have progressed to the point where Ringworld could finally be credibly realized on the big screen. Is there any possiblity of rescuing it from the rights limbo it has wandered into?
A CGI rendition of Nessus could make Gollum look as ordinary as Sean Astin was in Rudy. Speaker would be a kick to realize on CGI as well.
So what's the story, is there any hope of a Ringworld movie?
[chrisd] In case you needed a reminder...you don't own your hardware.
Yeah, no shit Sherlock. Why do you think people with a brain cell or two declined to give up any cash for one?
Geezus H Christ on a Pogo Stick!
There's a fourth model, which my company is using: buy lots of our hardware, and we won't say a word about software licensing.
English not your major? "Privilege" does not contain the letter "d" (unless your privvy is on a cliff, I guess).
djbdns drops queries in the CHAOS class, so it, too, returns no answer to the version.bind question.
cypherpunk/cypherpunk
You'd think these kids'd have learned how to spell "cipher" by now...
If you're going to so radically redesign email to thwart spammers, why not just redesign it so that the sender is responsible for message storage until the recipient elects to retrieve it? That will kill spammers dead. No one will retrieve their crap (except for the 0.001% that actually respond). Spammers will go over quota if they use their ISP's mail spool, and will have to pay for all their own storage if they use their own server farm. Open relays become a non-issue. If you allow people to promiscuously utilize your mail server you alone pay for the consequences, and no one else does.
Dan Bernstien, a somewhat famous eccentric programmer, has just such a proposal: Internet Mail 2000.
Creators have never been able to control their own work. Just ask God.