On my company's server, I solved the attempted SSH break-in problem by disabling password logins via SSH altogether. Only publicKey logins are allowed.
This is a very good method. I use it on my home server since I don't want anyone to be able to do a dictionary attack against it. Unless an attacker finds a buffer overflow that can be exploited, he cannot get in, as guessing the key is practically impossible.
I wouldn't use this method on a large site though, as it would be far too much of a hassle. At work, which qualifies as a large site, we use Kerberos for authentication instead.
I hope the decision to deny him root access was based on more than that one unintentional incident. It could have happened to any of you.
I agree. A couple of years ago, my boss told me about a mistake where he had accidentally struck the emergency power-off button in the server hall, realizing what he had done while hearing all noise slowly die out. I don't blame him, the button was awfully stupidly placed, on a box protruding out into one of the narrow aisles between the computer racks. In addition, it had no cover, and did not require any force to push. Touching it with his elbow was enough.
So what if you don't have PMP, and try to play an unprotected HD video? Does it work without degradation? Remember that the issue was that many people now use HD cameras for their family videos, and that those got degraded by Vista. And nobody in their right mind would use DRM on their family videos on their own computer (unless it is applied by default, that is).
You release the engine as free software and then assert copyright on the artistic assets like textures, sound, music, character design, etc. You would be charging for your ideas, not for your software, if that makes sense, and users would not be able to freely distribute the artistic assets.
Isn't that what Id Software is actually doing? They have released several game engines under the GPL, but AFAIK no game content.
people with a good reason to posess hacker tools (eg. legitimate anti-virus folk)
I'd add most or all system and network administrators. Suddenly, the group isn't very limited any longer. Anyone can be a system administrator if he owns at least one computer.
I see two reasons why they want to charge content providers extra:
They aren't actually charging you (the consumer) for all the bandwidth that you have available, so that if you and every other customer would start tu use a higher percentage of it, they can't make their ends meet. This more or less amounts to false advertising on their part (they said you had "unlimited" traffic, while in reality you hadn't.
They see the content providers make bucketloads of money making all these services available to you, and want a piece of the action, i.e. a part of their profits.
The answer to the first point should be the ASA suing them for false advertising. The answer to the second point is that the content providers already paid for their bandwidth, and the ISPs have no business taxing them just because they make large profits. Would car manufacturers (ahh, a car analogy) have to pay extra for the steel if they make big profits selling their cars? Sounds ridiculous to me.
Are you retarded or what? You make a simple problem complicated. The problem is simply that ISPs are saying that we have "unlimited" connections, because it sounds better in their advertising, while in reality we do not. Now they demand extra money if we would like to use all the bandwidth in our "unlimited" connections. That shows that they haven't been honest with us, and should be sued for false advertising.
The ISPs have nobody else to blame but themselves.
So first, the ISPs sell "unlimited" bandwidth, and then they want extra money if you are actually going to use it? Wouldn't that amount to false advertising? If they want people to pay extra for actually using their "unlimited" bandwidth, it isn't actually unlimited.
The patents in question are for Aloft's "Network Browser Graphical User Interface for Managing Web Content," US patent number 7,117,443, and "Network Browser Window with Adjacent Identifier Selector," US patent number 7,194,691 (...). They were filed for in late 2003 and were granted in October of 2006 and March of 2007, respectively. They describe user interfaces in a network browsing window that display the content at a specific URL as well as the URL itself somewhere on or around the window.
Sounds like a plain old web browser to me. This was filed in 2003 and granted in 2006/2007? I guess nobody had ever heard of web browsers by then. This is just too stupid.
I'm sure that we will eventually figure out a way to get energy from fusing the garden-variety hydrogen that is available pretty much everywhere.
If by "garden variety" you mean the regular hydrogen (i.e. not the heavier isotopes), I think that it is still way off. There are several disadvantages to this reaction versus reactions involving the heavier hydrogen isotopes.
Can you please elaborate on what the problem with RPM is? You complain of broken.rpm packages, but what does that have to do with the packaging system itself? I'd guess that anyone could equally easy create broken.deb packages.
The difference is that procedurally generated content is dynamic and always changing
Not necessarily. The same input parameters to the content generator gives the same result every time. I'd say that the big difference is that the content itself is generated by code from a (comparably) small set of parameters, while with traditional content, most of it is manually created in a modeling tool and associated applications, specifying detailed information such as vertex coordinates and the color and transparency of every texel.
As an example, think of the Julia set. Just one complex number as input gives a complete and consistent (i.e. not just a bunch of random pixels) image as a result.
As others have already stated, the big thing about Spore is that it uses procedural content generation for the majority of its content. The simplest examples of procedural content generation are fractals. A tiny piece of code generates an infinitely large image. Infinite in the sense that regardless of how much you zoom in, new details always appear, as the image is generated on the fly.
I think that part of the issue here is that they've both confused the concept of procedural programming(...) with procedural generation then proceded to give a better description of the first.
Exactly. And procedural generation isn't hard to understand (at least conceptually), he could just have given a brief on fractals, since they are a well-known example of procedural content generation. A tiny piece of code generates a nice-looking picture. And regardless of how much you zoom in, it never becomes pixelated, as new content is generated on the fly. The Mandelbrot set is an excellent example.
Hard? Dual-boot? In what way? Even the first time I installed Linux (Red Hat 5.2), I cannot say that it was hard. Of course, I used a partition-shrinking program before the install so that there was free unpartitioned space before I ran the install, but at that time, Linux install programs didn't automatically shrink Windows partitions to make space.
The only time it became somewhat hard is when I got a second harddrive, and tried to run Windows from it. It took some time before I figured out that I had to trick the Windows kernel loader to think that it was installed on the first harddrive, not the second, because Windows can only boot if it resides on the first harddrive. But this problem only occurs with multiple disks in the computer.
What he referred to is that Windows comes preloaded while Linux mostly do not. Most Windows users never install Windows themselves. To make a reasonable comparison, you should either compare installing Windows on a naked computer with installing Linux on the same (naked) computer, or compare a computer with Windows preloaded with the same computer with Linux preloaded.
Saying that Linux is hard to use just because installation requires familiarity with such concepts as partitions and MBRs, while most users never touch the Windows installer (which requires about the same knowledge) because Windows comes preloaded is the opposition of a fair comparison.
One real way to solve this would be total Windows compatibility.
May I ask how that would be accomplished? Windows is a moving target, and as long as it continues to move, it will be impossible to get 100% Windows compatibility.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a very good method. I use it on my home server since I don't want anyone to be able to do a dictionary attack against it. Unless an attacker finds a buffer overflow that can be exploited, he cannot get in, as guessing the key is practically impossible.
I wouldn't use this method on a large site though, as it would be far too much of a hassle. At work, which qualifies as a large site, we use Kerberos for authentication instead.
I agree. A couple of years ago, my boss told me about a mistake where he had accidentally struck the emergency power-off button in the server hall, realizing what he had done while hearing all noise slowly die out. I don't blame him, the button was awfully stupidly placed, on a box protruding out into one of the narrow aisles between the computer racks. In addition, it had no cover, and did not require any force to push. Touching it with his elbow was enough.
Then, the ISPs shouldn't say that it is unlimited. Problem solved.
So what if you don't have PMP, and try to play an unprotected HD video? Does it work without degradation? Remember that the issue was that many people now use HD cameras for their family videos, and that those got degraded by Vista. And nobody in their right mind would use DRM on their family videos on their own computer (unless it is applied by default, that is).
Isn't that what Id Software is actually doing? They have released several game engines under the GPL, but AFAIK no game content.
What codec was used for compression? The summary (I did not read TFA) said that alternative codecs, like x264 and XviD would work fine.
I'd add most or all system and network administrators. Suddenly, the group isn't very limited any longer. Anyone can be a system administrator if he owns at least one computer.
I see two reasons why they want to charge content providers extra:
The answer to the first point should be the ASA suing them for false advertising. The answer to the second point is that the content providers already paid for their bandwidth, and the ISPs have no business taxing them just because they make large profits. Would car manufacturers (ahh, a car analogy) have to pay extra for the steel if they make big profits selling their cars? Sounds ridiculous to me.
Are you retarded or what? You make a simple problem complicated. The problem is simply that ISPs are saying that we have "unlimited" connections, because it sounds better in their advertising, while in reality we do not. Now they demand extra money if we would like to use all the bandwidth in our "unlimited" connections. That shows that they haven't been honest with us, and should be sued for false advertising.
The ISPs have nobody else to blame but themselves.
So first, the ISPs sell "unlimited" bandwidth, and then they want extra money if you are actually going to use it? Wouldn't that amount to false advertising? If they want people to pay extra for actually using their "unlimited" bandwidth, it isn't actually unlimited.
It is the US. US diplomats were pushing for the CII (software patent) directive in the EU.
What is this, a joke? FTA:
The patents in question are for Aloft's "Network Browser Graphical User Interface for Managing Web Content," US patent number 7,117,443, and "Network Browser Window with Adjacent Identifier Selector," US patent number 7,194,691 (...). They were filed for in late 2003 and were granted in October of 2006 and March of 2007, respectively. They describe user interfaces in a network browsing window that display the content at a specific URL as well as the URL itself somewhere on or around the window.Sounds like a plain old web browser to me. This was filed in 2003 and granted in 2006/2007? I guess nobody had ever heard of web browsers by then. This is just too stupid.
If by "garden variety" you mean the regular hydrogen (i.e. not the heavier isotopes), I think that it is still way off. There are several disadvantages to this reaction versus reactions involving the heavier hydrogen isotopes.
Can you please elaborate on what the problem with RPM is? You complain of broken .rpm packages, but what does that have to do with the packaging system itself? I'd guess that anyone could equally easy create broken .deb packages.
Not necessarily. The same input parameters to the content generator gives the same result every time. I'd say that the big difference is that the content itself is generated by code from a (comparably) small set of parameters, while with traditional content, most of it is manually created in a modeling tool and associated applications, specifying detailed information such as vertex coordinates and the color and transparency of every texel.
As an example, think of the Julia set. Just one complex number as input gives a complete and consistent (i.e. not just a bunch of random pixels) image as a result.
As others have already stated, the big thing about Spore is that it uses procedural content generation for the majority of its content. The simplest examples of procedural content generation are fractals. A tiny piece of code generates an infinitely large image. Infinite in the sense that regardless of how much you zoom in, new details always appear, as the image is generated on the fly.
Spore just builds upon this basic concept.
Exactly. And procedural generation isn't hard to understand (at least conceptually), he could just have given a brief on fractals, since they are a well-known example of procedural content generation. A tiny piece of code generates a nice-looking picture. And regardless of how much you zoom in, it never becomes pixelated, as new content is generated on the fly. The Mandelbrot set is an excellent example.
A power user that doesn't know anything about partitions and cannot use Disk Druid?
You must be confusing the Windows installer with the system rescue disc.
This can be done from within Windows using the Disk Management administrative tool.
Hard? Dual-boot? In what way? Even the first time I installed Linux (Red Hat 5.2), I cannot say that it was hard. Of course, I used a partition-shrinking program before the install so that there was free unpartitioned space before I ran the install, but at that time, Linux install programs didn't automatically shrink Windows partitions to make space.
The only time it became somewhat hard is when I got a second harddrive, and tried to run Windows from it. It took some time before I figured out that I had to trick the Windows kernel loader to think that it was installed on the first harddrive, not the second, because Windows can only boot if it resides on the first harddrive. But this problem only occurs with multiple disks in the computer.
What he referred to is that Windows comes preloaded while Linux mostly do not. Most Windows users never install Windows themselves. To make a reasonable comparison, you should either compare installing Windows on a naked computer with installing Linux on the same (naked) computer, or compare a computer with Windows preloaded with the same computer with Linux preloaded.
Saying that Linux is hard to use just because installation requires familiarity with such concepts as partitions and MBRs, while most users never touch the Windows installer (which requires about the same knowledge) because Windows comes preloaded is the opposition of a fair comparison.
Your parents run a tanks game? My mom never plays any game ("games are for kids"), and my dad only plays solitaire and minesweeper every now and then.
In what way has the monopoly been good for computing?
May I ask how that would be accomplished? Windows is a moving target, and as long as it continues to move, it will be impossible to get 100% Windows compatibility.