I'm excited for this new ability to unbundle! Pretty soon, Windows Server 2010 will offer me Good News Office Modular Extensions(TM), which will work something like this:
1. open command prompt
2. yum install msoffice2010.msi
3. cat "http://www.officeupdate.com" >>/etc/apt/sources.list
4. apt-get update
5. emerge -pDNu windows
1) All real religions will gladly tell you what they're about before hand. -- No, they still keep secret teachings, though you have to infer what you can from reading the autobiography.
2) No real religion will brainwash you into mortgaging your house. -- They might get you to do this in order to make enough time to complete the trials and meditation, but again, don't get any money from it.
3) No real religion protects their materials by copyright, so they can do #2, and use the law to squelch leaks and critics. -- Again, no printed materials, but you're "strongly encouraged" to read the autobiography, which can only legally be had for money (the founder ceded the rights to the publisher and can't afford to buy the rights back); by deriving revenues from its copyright, they're participants in anything the publisher does in defense of the book: sue people who claim it's a lie (thus hurting sales), copy it without permission, etc. The secrecy of the teachings are protected by simply not confirming or denying anything anyone says about the religion, thus making any ex-convert who leaks unable to substantiate his claims.
4) No real religion will make you disconnect from your friends and family, so you will have nobody to instill some sense into you--and stop you from doing #2. -- Again, in practice, living an ascetic life will mean this.
5) All real religions on this planet are inclusive, instead of exclusive. -- Don't know what this means. They'll take anyone, but have the rigid rank system, and you must pass tests to move up. They profit from none of them, of course.
Sorry to hear you're being mod-stalked. I've friended you so I can always find you.
1) No, they still keep secret teachings, though you have to infer what you can from reading the autobiography.
Well, the publicly known facts could be considered part of their religious teachings. No one would join the sect who had problems with isolation or asceticism.
2) They might get you to do this in order to make enough time to complete the trials and meditation, but again, don't get any money from it.
Ok, just spending the years and years to get to the higher levels could be considered harmful. But don't you think this is at least less bad than a religion that would take all the money you have, thus leaving you basically enslaved to them? At least with this hypothetical monastic asceticism you could walk away, any time you wanted.
3) Again, no printed materials, but you're "strongly encouraged" to read the autobiography, which can only legally be had for money (the founder ceded the rights to the publisher and can't afford to buy the rights back); by deriving revenues from its copyright, they're participants in anything the publisher does in defense of the book: sue people who claim it's a lie (thus hurting sales), copy it without permission, etc. The secrecy of the teachings are protected by simply not confirming or denying anything anyone says about the religion, thus making any ex-convert who leaks unable to substantiate his claims.
This one I agree with. Most religions, however, have been around long enough that any published works they have are out of copyright, and thus can be obtained at least a few places for free. (Maybe the public library has a copy of the autobiography?)
4) Again, in practice, living an ascetic life will mean this.
Your friends and family can visit you. You can walk away. I suppose if you've made the choice, you've sort of voluntarily cut yourself off from them. But you did it before being brainwashed, before spending all your time and money, so you must have done it freely? I'm not sure I can find a coherent way of saying it, but I think an ascetic life is harmless. Though I certainly don't live one!;-)
5) Don't know what this means. They'll take anyone, but have the rigid rank system, and you must pass tests to move up. They profit from none of them, of course.
Asceticism is usu
Well, I know I'm not a Libertarian, but I want Ron Paul for president in 2008. It's not that Libertarianism has problems, but just my personal opinions aren't 100% Libertarian. Anyway, here's hoping we can disagree amicably.
On the one hand, there's Arrow's Impossibility theorem which, in short, proves something like "you can please 100% of the people some of the time; you can please some of the people 100% of the time; but, you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time."
In my opinion, any government which must use force (including threat of force, since it's just a bluff until someone tests the system) is a flawed government. That's not to say I don't like the Constitution, because in fact, I think it's the best document ever written on government and we should (as Ron Paul would) follow it more closely.
I just believe that prisons, wars, and such, are as much an indictment of the system of government as they are an indictment of the people who get involved, both prisoners and guards. The simplest argument is that they generate no economic value (and prison labor camps are just communism -- so I'm avoiding that subject). Wars and prisons are a sink-hole, a waste, ergo the economic argument that they're wrong.
So in defending our Constitutional way of government, I am making a compromise. I don't want any minorities oppressed, but since that's impossible (Arrow's theorem) I back up just an inch and go with -- no government is possible without the support of the governed. So the robber or murderer causes a lot of anger in the general public, asking the government to imprison the offender, way out of proportion to the single voice of the criminal saying, "No, don't throw me in prison."
A representative democracy is definitely an imperfect system. But it's the one I support. However, when government starts exercising coercion over the public in any degree, "to reduce them under absolute despotism," (so whether total despotism is the stated goal, or whether it's just a tiny, tiny sliver of despotism) then they'd best remember that despots live in fear. And even wanna-be despots who impose a sliver of coercion live in fear. It is self-evident, because the general public may be slow to respond to death by 1000 paper-cuts, but when they do, there is no stopping them.
And again, the thing I love about the Constitution is that it is a guide on how to respond successfully. There have been revolutions before 1776, but since then the U.S. hasn't needed one. (I'm deliberately side-lining all the military action, including the Civil War, for a reason. The U.S. Constitution has stood since it was signed in 1783.) We've seen massive changes, but we executed them successfully, and I think that's largely because of our Constitution. We need even greater changes now, but we need not start wars and prisons, tyranny or anarchy.
If you can't tell the difference between your government and organized crime, your government is being criminal.
Governments derive their power from the people. It is not the other way around: people do not have "rights" listed by the Magna Carta, or Bill of Rights. No, those documents spell out rights that the government shall not take. But if the government is behaving criminally, the people must demand that it be held accountable. If the people under a criminal government do not call it to account, they will be giving their powers to it every time they pay taxes, show government ID, take "government handouts" (like public roads, public power, etc.) and so on.
Coercion isn't necessary for government. In fact, it is impossible. When enough of the population decides not to support their government, many of them may be killed by the government but they inevitably succeed in destroying the unwanted government. Hopefully, the population will think it all the way through, "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Seriously, I think as geeks we are now obligated to:
1. collaborate with the geeks that run his ISP
2. go over to Paul's house, download something pointless from bayimg
3. call up our friend at the ISP and get his account permanently terminated. Bonus points if he lives in a monopoly zone (Comcast, I'm looking at you) so he can only get dialup afterward.
I think the same strategy would be effective for dealing with Bush and co. Declare them enemy combatants and interview them regularly in Guatanamo. Before and after the waterboarding.
Excellent point. Although other debates have questioned Microsoft's numbers, if there are really 20 million installs (plus further installs since then) in use out there, hackers might begin to take a look.
But to paraphrase the Drake equation, of the total Vista installs, how many have been hit by crackers? How many of those were honeypots, caught by virus scanners, or otherwise detected? How many exploits found by crackers have been used in highly targeted attacks and kept secret?
All I can think of is the remote TCP/IP exploit. As some of you may recall, that exploit existed in all versions of Windows. And Vista supposedly has a "completely rewritten TCP/IP stack" (source).
In 1929, Boston's Cardinal O'Connell branded Einstein's theory of relativity as "befogged speculation producing universal doubt about God and His Creation," and as implying "the ghastly apparition of atheism." In alarm, New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein asked Einstein by telegram: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." In his response, for which Einstein needed but twenty-five (German) words, he stated his beliefs succinctly:
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
The rabbi cited this as evidence that Einstein was not an atheist, and further declared that "Einstein's theory, if carried to its logical conclusion, would bring to mankind a scientific formula for monotheism." Einstein wisely remained silent on that point.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
I totally agree with you. But food for thought: ham radio operators were the distributed network during the mainframe days 40 years ago.
Maybe it's about the population of users in each camp. I mean, mainframes, HPCs, and imaginary Beowulf clusters haven't gone away. It's not an either/or proposition.
But good luck convincing your boss to take a mixed approach. When Microsoft enters the mainframe market, surely we're all doomed.
I don't have any amputations to give me credibility. But have you tried the experiments proposed by the GPP? I think he's being completely fair about it (but am I being fair?) so he just changed my mind. I understand the complex dilemma discussed in several posts above this, but the engineering argument is simply correct: a double-knee-amputee has lost a lot of chemical-to-mechanical converters (a.k.a. muscles) and is thus at a big disadvantage.
A more interesting discussion would be the genetically modified mouse posted here a while back who had a vastly improved aerobic system so he could run on a treadmill for 3 hours. That kind of modification could enable a runner to actually use the power in their legs. But for a 100-m dash, there's enough ATP stored in the muscles to get pretty good use out of them. The fact that Oscar Pistorius is a world-class sprinter indicates that he's something special. He's not a world-class distance runner. He's missing a large chunk of power and still competes well.
Be scientific about it. Compute the wattage of your calves. Or try walking up stairs keeping your heels on the steps. That's all.
Photographers and cameramen (and women) are usually very good about obtaining your permission. It's true (especially for the news) that you can't claim copyright in public places. The reason why Ford and ABC for example haven't clashed over this is simple:
Ford is protecting their trademark. Although ABC probably has a standing agreement with Ford that allows ABC to use Ford images, if ABC did a segment on "Ford Cars are (insert adjective here)" it's highly likely they would call a Ford PR representative before airing the piece.
If ABC consistently ignored Ford when doing segments on "Ford (this and that)," Ford would sue for trademark infringement, even if the images ABC used were all obtained in public places. Even if ABC didn't put the word "Ford" in the title, if the segment featured mostly Ford cars, it would be the same.
Any message about a large corporation gets filtered by their PR. They have the lawyers, and they are "defending the trademark." Scary, I think.
Apparently no MBAs around. But Intelligent Agents are, not surprisingly, Artificial Intelligence. Strong A.I. is a term that A.I. researchers can't even agree on. I think it will happen afterDuke Nukem Forever.
The article says that soon you will send out an agent from your mobile phone and it will find your coworkers who are wandering around the city. Then they will all get a text with directions to a meetup location. And the article has nothing to say about how you will react when you get a random text from HAL-9000 saying "Turn left and park at Starbucks for a mandatory meeting."
Q: Bush's energy bill provided billions of dollars in tax breaks & subsidies to the oil companies with the goal of boosting domestic production at a time of record profits. Do you support that?
A: I don't think the profits is the issue. The profits are okay if they're legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don't think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn.
You need to state your sources. They don't agree with you.
I feel compelled to request that if your newsletter might be made available, I would be delighted to participate in its distribution.:-)
Flagrant violations of accepted manuals of style and loquacious repetitions of the gurgling heard by the three billy goats necessitate a strident defense of the common man's ability to correctly sequence glyphs into coherent statements without resorting to a corruption of the form established in the dictionary. In all likelihood a large majority of our noble race possesses the necessary skills to acquire letters in the proper use of writing, if only it might be persuading enough that a pursuit of these ends would net a fitting reward. In short, a noble self interest does not a Cambridge writer make.
Any system which aims to improve on capitalism must improve on the core concepts: the motivation of each individual in the system (pure profit motive isn't good enough if we're going to eliminate corruption), and the governing body (democratic governments are vulnerable to small but vocal minority factions).
Any system that can provably outperform capitalism in a democracy must have some kind of higher guidance. I think religion can do it, if the people involved all voluntarily sign up for the religion. Others here mentioned computers (but who watches the watchers? who runs the systems?). I think that nation-wide, there is no better solution possible than capitalism and democracy.
The interesting thing is that, whether he lives to a ripe old age or not, his reputation -- even on slashdot -- is immortal.
I suppose that other discussions about our civil liberties in the UK, the US, and elsewhere, come down to the same thing. Live comfortably for a few years? Or risk life and limb for liberty, and maybe your grandchildren will remember you. "Give me liberty, or give me death" - Patrick Henry, 1775
For instance, they offer foo.nfshost.net sites, that could be covered with a *.nfshost.com [sic] SSL certificate.
Obligatory: I am a satisfied NearlyFreeSpeech.net customer.
They could offer that, and probably will in the near future (within a year, is my best guess). But e-commerce websites will want the brand recognition of http s://www.mysite.com. Such businesses aren't satisfied with sending all their customers to mysite.nfshost.com, in my experience. They want their customers to feel secure, and to be able to see the website's "real name" in the address bar when entering credit card info.
There is a way for NearlyFreeSpeech.net to serve up all those SSL certificates: use RFC 3546. In brief, the SSL library needs to support "Server Name Indication," which sends the server name to the server. That allows the server to do "virtual hosts," which is a big part of what NearlyFreeSpeech.net to sell "at cost."
Anyway, keep an eye on this bug in Apache for when support will be added to Apache's mod_ssl.
I agree with you on scanners. What about ATI video cards? The specs are being published. Surely there's a great demand for developers there. Or, contribute to the Nouveau project for nVidia cards.
I haven't been really impressed with the ALSA project's driver support, either. But it's probably not for lack of interested developers.
I'm going to guess that the charity auction low UID has 3 digits and sells for less than $10,000 but more than $8,000.
Also, I guess if it weren't a charity auction, a 3 digit UID would sell for between $1,000 and $5,000, depending on how widely publicized the sale was. (So, if a front-page slashdot article mentioned it, $5,000.)
Does anyone know a timeline for a patch? The securiteam.com article has no comments and I found no mention on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. I know I should just subscribe to LKML but has anyone seen any recent email traffic regarding this exploit?
As parent suggested that later 2.6.23-rc might have fixed this already, I read through the changelogs, but all I found was a reference to a ptrace bug in 2.6.23-rc6 ("On x86_64, this constitutes a regression in IA32 compatibility support.") So I think the vulnerability has not been discussed on LKML yet.
Slashdot Mirror
ARD = Apple Remote Desktop You can remove it by following these instructions.
I've enjoyed the book. I read it last year and I should read it again just to see what's changed. Thanks for all the work you've done!
I'm excited for this new ability to unbundle! Pretty soon, Windows Server 2010 will offer me Good News Office Modular Extensions(TM), which will work something like this:
/etc/apt/sources.list
1. open command prompt
2. yum install msoffice2010.msi
3. cat "http://www.officeupdate.com" >>
4. apt-get update
5. emerge -pDNu windows
You can always try out www.locustworld.com, though I've never used their hardware.
Your best bet may be a Linksys WRT54GL.
Sorry to hear you're being mod-stalked. I've friended you so I can always find you.
;-)
1) No, they still keep secret teachings, though you have to infer what you can from reading the autobiography.
Well, the publicly known facts could be considered part of their religious teachings. No one would join the sect who had problems with isolation or asceticism.
2) They might get you to do this in order to make enough time to complete the trials and meditation, but again, don't get any money from it.
Ok, just spending the years and years to get to the higher levels could be considered harmful. But don't you think this is at least less bad than a religion that would take all the money you have, thus leaving you basically enslaved to them? At least with this hypothetical monastic asceticism you could walk away, any time you wanted.
3) Again, no printed materials, but you're "strongly encouraged" to read the autobiography, which can only legally be had for money (the founder ceded the rights to the publisher and can't afford to buy the rights back); by deriving revenues from its copyright, they're participants in anything the publisher does in defense of the book: sue people who claim it's a lie (thus hurting sales), copy it without permission, etc. The secrecy of the teachings are protected by simply not confirming or denying anything anyone says about the religion, thus making any ex-convert who leaks unable to substantiate his claims.
This one I agree with. Most religions, however, have been around long enough that any published works they have are out of copyright, and thus can be obtained at least a few places for free. (Maybe the public library has a copy of the autobiography?)
4) Again, in practice, living an ascetic life will mean this.
Your friends and family can visit you. You can walk away. I suppose if you've made the choice, you've sort of voluntarily cut yourself off from them. But you did it before being brainwashed, before spending all your time and money, so you must have done it freely? I'm not sure I can find a coherent way of saying it, but I think an ascetic life is harmless. Though I certainly don't live one!
5) Don't know what this means. They'll take anyone, but have the rigid rank system, and you must pass tests to move up. They profit from none of them, of course.
Asceticism is usu
Conspiracy theories emerge after internet cables cut
The countries most affected by the damaged cables are Egypt, India and the Middle East (in particular Iran). Israel and Iraq, as far as we can tell, were not affected by this problem as they use an alternative route for this service.
Watch the media... they are a fairly good indicator of what Democrats are thinking.
Republican neo-cons (my mouth feels foul, saying that) are much harder to predict. You generally only see them publicly when they are reacting.
Can you cite a source, AC?
Well, I know I'm not a Libertarian, but I want Ron Paul for president in 2008. It's not that Libertarianism has problems, but just my personal opinions aren't 100% Libertarian. Anyway, here's hoping we can disagree amicably.
On the one hand, there's Arrow's Impossibility theorem which, in short, proves something like "you can please 100% of the people some of the time; you can please some of the people 100% of the time; but, you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time."
In my opinion, any government which must use force (including threat of force, since it's just a bluff until someone tests the system) is a flawed government. That's not to say I don't like the Constitution, because in fact, I think it's the best document ever written on government and we should (as Ron Paul would) follow it more closely.
I just believe that prisons, wars, and such, are as much an indictment of the system of government as they are an indictment of the people who get involved, both prisoners and guards. The simplest argument is that they generate no economic value (and prison labor camps are just communism -- so I'm avoiding that subject). Wars and prisons are a sink-hole, a waste, ergo the economic argument that they're wrong.
So in defending our Constitutional way of government, I am making a compromise. I don't want any minorities oppressed, but since that's impossible (Arrow's theorem) I back up just an inch and go with -- no government is possible without the support of the governed. So the robber or murderer causes a lot of anger in the general public, asking the government to imprison the offender, way out of proportion to the single voice of the criminal saying, "No, don't throw me in prison."
A representative democracy is definitely an imperfect system. But it's the one I support. However, when government starts exercising coercion over the public in any degree, "to reduce them under absolute despotism," (so whether total despotism is the stated goal, or whether it's just a tiny, tiny sliver of despotism) then they'd best remember that despots live in fear. And even wanna-be despots who impose a sliver of coercion live in fear. It is self-evident, because the general public may be slow to respond to death by 1000 paper-cuts, but when they do, there is no stopping them.
And again, the thing I love about the Constitution is that it is a guide on how to respond successfully. There have been revolutions before 1776, but since then the U.S. hasn't needed one. (I'm deliberately side-lining all the military action, including the Civil War, for a reason. The U.S. Constitution has stood since it was signed in 1783.) We've seen massive changes, but we executed them successfully, and I think that's largely because of our Constitution. We need even greater changes now, but we need not start wars and prisons, tyranny or anarchy.
The way forward is clear.
If you can't tell the difference between your government and organized crime, your government is being criminal.
Governments derive their power from the people. It is not the other way around: people do not have "rights" listed by the Magna Carta, or Bill of Rights. No, those documents spell out rights that the government shall not take. But if the government is behaving criminally, the people must demand that it be held accountable. If the people under a criminal government do not call it to account, they will be giving their powers to it every time they pay taxes, show government ID, take "government handouts" (like public roads, public power, etc.) and so on.
Coercion isn't necessary for government. In fact, it is impossible. When enough of the population decides not to support their government, many of them may be killed by the government but they inevitably succeed in destroying the unwanted government. Hopefully, the population will think it all the way through, "throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Will somebody mod parent up, please?
Seriously, I think as geeks we are now obligated to:
1. collaborate with the geeks that run his ISP
2. go over to Paul's house, download something pointless from bayimg
3. call up our friend at the ISP and get his account permanently terminated. Bonus points if he lives in a monopoly zone (Comcast, I'm looking at you) so he can only get dialup afterward.
I think the same strategy would be effective for dealing with Bush and co. Declare them enemy combatants and interview them regularly in Guatanamo. Before and after the waterboarding.
Excellent point. Although other debates have questioned Microsoft's numbers, if there are really 20 million installs (plus further installs since then) in use out there, hackers might begin to take a look.
But to paraphrase the Drake equation, of the total Vista installs, how many have been hit by crackers? How many of those were honeypots, caught by virus scanners, or otherwise detected? How many exploits found by crackers have been used in highly targeted attacks and kept secret?
All I can think of is the remote TCP/IP exploit. As some of you may recall, that exploit existed in all versions of Windows. And Vista supposedly has a "completely rewritten TCP/IP stack" (source).
"I have a bad feeling about this."
But the sources for relevant Wikipedia articles are credible primary sources. (Brian, Dennis (1996), Einstein: A Life, New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 127, ISBN 0-471-11459-6) To save you some time, I've added some line breaks but retained the context.
Now for the second quote:
I totally agree with you. But food for thought: ham radio operators were the distributed network during the mainframe days 40 years ago.
Maybe it's about the population of users in each camp. I mean, mainframes, HPCs, and imaginary Beowulf clusters haven't gone away. It's not an either/or proposition.
But good luck convincing your boss to take a mixed approach. When Microsoft enters the mainframe market, surely we're all doomed.
I don't have any amputations to give me credibility. But have you tried the experiments proposed by the GPP? I think he's being completely fair about it (but am I being fair?) so he just changed my mind. I understand the complex dilemma discussed in several posts above this, but the engineering argument is simply correct: a double-knee-amputee has lost a lot of chemical-to-mechanical converters (a.k.a. muscles) and is thus at a big disadvantage.
A more interesting discussion would be the genetically modified mouse posted here a while back who had a vastly improved aerobic system so he could run on a treadmill for 3 hours. That kind of modification could enable a runner to actually use the power in their legs. But for a 100-m dash, there's enough ATP stored in the muscles to get pretty good use out of them. The fact that Oscar Pistorius is a world-class sprinter indicates that he's something special. He's not a world-class distance runner. He's missing a large chunk of power and still competes well.
Be scientific about it. Compute the wattage of your calves. Or try walking up stairs keeping your heels on the steps. That's all.
Photographers and cameramen (and women) are usually very good about obtaining your permission. It's true (especially for the news) that you can't claim copyright in public places. The reason why Ford and ABC for example haven't clashed over this is simple:
Ford is protecting their trademark. Although ABC probably has a standing agreement with Ford that allows ABC to use Ford images, if ABC did a segment on "Ford Cars are (insert adjective here)" it's highly likely they would call a Ford PR representative before airing the piece.
If ABC consistently ignored Ford when doing segments on "Ford (this and that)," Ford would sue for trademark infringement, even if the images ABC used were all obtained in public places. Even if ABC didn't put the word "Ford" in the title, if the segment featured mostly Ford cars, it would be the same.
Any message about a large corporation gets filtered by their PR. They have the lawyers, and they are "defending the trademark." Scary, I think.
Apparently no MBAs around. But Intelligent Agents are, not surprisingly, Artificial Intelligence. Strong A.I. is a term that A.I. researchers can't even agree on. I think it will happen after Duke Nukem Forever.
The article says that soon you will send out an agent from your mobile phone and it will find your coworkers who are wandering around the city. Then they will all get a text with directions to a meetup location. And the article has nothing to say about how you will react when you get a random text from HAL-9000 saying "Turn left and park at Starbucks for a mandatory meeting."
You need to state your sources. They don't agree with you.
Dear Sir Beckerman,
:-)
I feel compelled to request that if your newsletter might be made available, I would be delighted to participate in its distribution.
Flagrant violations of accepted manuals of style and loquacious repetitions of the gurgling heard by the three billy goats necessitate a strident defense of the common man's ability to correctly sequence glyphs into coherent statements without resorting to a corruption of the form established in the dictionary. In all likelihood a large majority of our noble race possesses the necessary skills to acquire letters in the proper use of writing, if only it might be persuading enough that a pursuit of these ends would net a fitting reward. In short, a noble self interest does not a Cambridge writer make.
Any system which aims to improve on capitalism must improve on the core concepts: the motivation of each individual in the system (pure profit motive isn't good enough if we're going to eliminate corruption), and the governing body (democratic governments are vulnerable to small but vocal minority factions).
Any system that can provably outperform capitalism in a democracy must have some kind of higher guidance. I think religion can do it, if the people involved all voluntarily sign up for the religion. Others here mentioned computers (but who watches the watchers? who runs the systems?). I think that nation-wide, there is no better solution possible than capitalism and democracy.
The interesting thing is that, whether he lives to a ripe old age or not, his reputation -- even on slashdot -- is immortal.
I suppose that other discussions about our civil liberties in the UK, the US, and elsewhere, come down to the same thing. Live comfortably for a few years? Or risk life and limb for liberty, and maybe your grandchildren will remember you. "Give me liberty, or give me death" - Patrick Henry, 1775
They could offer that, and probably will in the near future (within a year, is my best guess). But e-commerce websites will want the brand recognition of http s://www.mysite.com. Such businesses aren't satisfied with sending all their customers to mysite.nfshost.com, in my experience. They want their customers to feel secure, and to be able to see the website's "real name" in the address bar when entering credit card info.
There is a way for NearlyFreeSpeech.net to serve up all those SSL certificates: use RFC 3546. In brief, the SSL library needs to support "Server Name Indication," which sends the server name to the server. That allows the server to do "virtual hosts," which is a big part of what NearlyFreeSpeech.net to sell "at cost."
Anyway, keep an eye on this bug in Apache for when support will be added to Apache's mod_ssl.
I agree with you on scanners. What about ATI video cards? The specs are being published. Surely there's a great demand for developers there. Or, contribute to the Nouveau project for nVidia cards.
I haven't been really impressed with the ALSA project's driver support, either. But it's probably not for lack of interested developers.
I'm going to guess that the charity auction low UID has 3 digits and sells for less than $10,000 but more than $8,000.
Also, I guess if it weren't a charity auction, a 3 digit UID would sell for between $1,000 and $5,000, depending on how widely publicized the sale was. (So, if a front-page slashdot article mentioned it, $5,000.)
Reply with your predictions. We'll see who wins the fantasy UID betting.
Does anyone know a timeline for a patch? The securiteam.com article has no comments and I found no mention on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. I know I should just subscribe to LKML but has anyone seen any recent email traffic regarding this exploit?
As parent suggested that later 2.6.23-rc might have fixed this already, I read through the changelogs, but all I found was a reference to a ptrace bug in 2.6.23-rc6 ("On x86_64, this constitutes a regression in IA32 compatibility support.") So I think the vulnerability has not been discussed on LKML yet.