You would have a p-wave traveling over the rope. Guessing from the equation[1] for the speed of a p-wave, the speed of your signal will be pretty low. You would probably be measuring ping times in hours instead of milliseconds.
Use some kind of user interface that's different from what they know.
I use OpenBSD, xdm, scrotwm (tiling window manager) and lots of xterms. This is the way I like to work with the added bonus that nobody wants to use your machine. But it's a great way to get attention.
Messing up the X config was one of the best things I did in Linux. I just switched to cli-only for the next few months. This is how I forced myself past the "high learning curve" and I enjoy it ever since.
I think it was slackware linux when I was fifteen or sixteen. I was completely Windows-free well before I was out of high school.
I can't find a authoritative answer on the VM issue, but I had the same feeling when I read this news.
Assuming you can use this (or similar) attack to escape a VM, you don't even need to root a box. Just rent a virtual box and you have instant root access to all virtual machines on the box. This shows that you really can't trust a VM as a security tool. A VM is great as a testing tool or as a way to rent really cheap "servers", but if you want security use a separate box.
You said it clearly. Given these axioms. People who question evolution simply have different set of axioms.
Noticed the "Math:" in front of the part about axioms? I was trying to make a distinction between math and the other sciences like biology. People who don't like evolution should think of a better theory. This has nothing to do with axioms.
So in a way you can't prove that 2+2=4 because if there is an axiom that says that 2+2=5 then your proof is invalid because it contradict the axiom.
That's why I said you build your proof on axioms. You can't just add or change axioms and hope all your proofs remain valid, you'll be lucky if your set of axioms remains consistent.
Translation: Given the axioms of Euclidean geometry we can prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
Good point. Including the axioms in your statement feels like a cheap escape to me. But I can't really find good arguments to support this feeling.
Maybe I should have defined "absolute truth" as "True in all situations and under all axioms", but this doesn't really fix my argument in a satisfying way.
Can you explain to me why I am wrong? Maybe I could learn something from it. At least do it for the children I teach, they could benefit from my new insights.
Math: given these axioms we can prove "2+2=4". Physics/biology/etc: We think nature follows these rules and as long as we don't see evidence to falsify these rules we assume they are correct. Else you need to search for a new rule that does match all your observations.
Would you say that "the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees" is an absolute truth? How about in non-Euclydian geometry?
You think 10 minutes for reactivation is fast? Most of my OS installs are done in about 10 minutes and Windows needs 10 minutes just to ask for permission to install.
I can't understand why so much people find this acceptable.
I get the impression that the most vocal group asks for "Linux drivers", even less ask for "open source Linux drivers". Just a few ask for documentation.
I'm glad they released the documentation. There are more OS's than Linux and maintaining an undocumented driver will probably be a hell.
The text in the book is indeed a good read. I'm not that positive about the example code in the C version. For example: they start all their arrays with 1 instead of 0 and use some kind of "array()" function instead of "malloc()". Somehow the code looked like it was C by FORTRAN programmers, the style seemed a bit off.
That said: you shouldn't copy and paste the code from the book. Instead try to understand the algorithm and re-implement it yourself.
You might want to read the third article you link.
there is a major difference between binary blobs and firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro CPUs.
OpenBSD does contain binary firmware files.
But don't take my word for it (or the article's) and check the contents of/etc/firmware/.
I even had an argument with one of my friends. I kept answering his questions with: "bash(1)" or "ssh(1)" or whatever he needed documentation about. He kept telling me how useless and confusing manpages where, but I couldn't understand why and kept referring him to manpages. After a while he even started to get annoyed with me and I decided to investigate why. It turned out he was using Linux and I was using OpenBSD. The manpages I was refering him to really did suck on Linux. It took a while before I convinced him a well writen manpage can actuaally be usefull.
Re:A site geared towards Linux user, to learn Open
on
OpenBSD 4.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
As far as I know, OpenBSD tries to be fully POSIX compliant. Not just to document the points where they are not compliant. And OpenBSD is the last project I would critisize with respect to documentation.
Thanks for your clear explanation and keep up the good work.
I was trying to criticize RMS for criticizing others who "include" non-Free software while recommending GNewSense which included (includes?) non-Free software too.
Although I don't use GNewSense, I do run a blob free OS.
I am unhappy with the various
distributions of BSD, because all of them include, in their
installation systems, the ports system, they all include some non-free
programs.
I don't know if you are serious, or if you are joking. I hope you are aiming for +5 funny, because I think you are, but your the point you are arguing is very close to RMS's opinion* about the evils of helping people installing less-Free software on a Free OS.
Given his strong opinion on the topic of non-Free software, I can't really understand this sentence: "Since the last release, more non-free binary blobs have been removed,....". Does that mean GNewSense included and still includes non-Free blob's?
* At least, that's what I think his point was.
Re:It's summer, and Slashdot is trolling
on
UK P2P Fight Brewing
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I trade my linux binaries via P2P (fine - then you should have no problem of rightsholders doing file-hash-based enforcement)
I still oppose to the filtering and thus monitoring of my downloads. Especially if I'm downloading legal stuff.
I learned about band X from P2p (fine - in which case if it makese economic sense for a company or band to release thusly, they will.. it's their decision to make)
Doesn't make it legal maybe, but can make it morally acceptable to me. Why would it be illegal if you are not hurting anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Your life can only suck as much as you're willing to allow it to.
- by pushf popf (741049) on Tuesday December 08, @11:07PM
You would have a p-wave traveling over the rope. Guessing from the equation[1] for the speed of a p-wave, the speed of your signal will be pretty low. You would probably be measuring ping times in hours instead of milliseconds.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-wave
Use some kind of user interface that's different from what they know.
I use OpenBSD, xdm, scrotwm (tiling window manager) and lots of xterms. This is the way I like to work with the added bonus that nobody wants to use your machine. But it's a great way to get attention.
A processing like environment in Python would be awsome!
Messing up the X config was one of the best things I did in Linux. I just switched to cli-only for the next few months. This is how I forced myself past the "high learning curve" and I enjoy it ever since. I think it was slackware linux when I was fifteen or sixteen. I was completely Windows-free well before I was out of high school.
I can't find a authoritative answer on the VM issue, but I had the same feeling when I read this news.
Assuming you can use this (or similar) attack to escape a VM, you don't even need to root a box. Just rent a virtual box and you have instant root access to all virtual machines on the box. This shows that you really can't trust a VM as a security tool. A VM is great as a testing tool or as a way to rent really cheap "servers", but if you want security use a separate box.
I use OpenBSD daily on my laptop and servers. They do a lot of great stuff. But OpenSSL is not one of those things.
As a "Netherlander" I find this offensive.
/. again?
Now, what was I doing on
....looked up the name of your wife...
That's another fundamental logic failure: This is Slashdot; I can't have a wife! Besides I'm way too young to be thinking about marrying someone.
You are starting to creep me out.
You said it clearly. Given these axioms. People who question evolution simply have different set of axioms.
Noticed the "Math:" in front of the part about axioms? I was trying to make a distinction between math and the other sciences like biology. People who don't like evolution should think of a better theory. This has nothing to do with axioms.
So in a way you can't prove that 2+2=4 because if there is an axiom that says that 2+2=5 then your proof is invalid because it contradict the axiom.
That's why I said you build your proof on axioms. You can't just add or change axioms and hope all your proofs remain valid, you'll be lucky if your set of axioms remains consistent.
Translation: Given the axioms of Euclidean geometry we can prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
Good point. Including the axioms in your statement feels like a cheap escape to me. But I can't really find good arguments to support this feeling.
Maybe I should have defined "absolute truth" as "True in all situations and under all axioms", but this doesn't really fix my argument in a satisfying way.
That's just mean....
Can you explain to me why I am wrong? Maybe I could learn something from it. At least do it for the children I teach, they could benefit from my new insights.
Math: given these axioms we can prove "2+2=4".
Physics/biology/etc: We think nature follows these rules and as long as we don't see evidence to falsify these rules we assume they are correct. Else you need to search for a new rule that does match all your observations.
Would you say that "the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees" is an absolute truth? How about in non-Euclydian geometry?
You think 10 minutes for reactivation is fast? Most of my OS installs are done in about 10 minutes and Windows needs 10 minutes just to ask for permission to install. I can't understand why so much people find this acceptable.
Backups! Even on Windows, you can make little mistakes and overwrite or remove your precious files.
I run OpenBSD on my Eee PC 1000H and it runs fine. Except for the webcam, all hardware works out of the box.
I get the impression that the most vocal group asks for "Linux drivers", even less ask for "open source Linux drivers". Just a few ask for documentation. I'm glad they released the documentation. There are more OS's than Linux and maintaining an undocumented driver will probably be a hell.
The text in the book is indeed a good read. I'm not that positive about the example code in the C version. For example: they start all their arrays with 1 instead of 0 and use some kind of "array()" function instead of "malloc()". Somehow the code looked like it was C by FORTRAN programmers, the style seemed a bit off. That said: you shouldn't copy and paste the code from the book. Instead try to understand the algorithm and re-implement it yourself.
there is a major difference between binary blobs and firmware images; the blobs are loaded as code into the OS kernel, but the firmware runs directly on the device on crappy embedded micro CPUs.
OpenBSD does contain binary firmware files. But don't take my word for it (or the article's) and check the contents of /etc/firmware/.
I even had an argument with one of my friends. I kept answering his questions with: "bash(1)" or "ssh(1)" or whatever he needed documentation about. He kept telling me how useless and confusing manpages where, but I couldn't understand why and kept referring him to manpages. After a while he even started to get annoyed with me and I decided to investigate why. It turned out he was using Linux and I was using OpenBSD. The manpages I was refering him to really did suck on Linux. It took a while before I convinced him a well writen manpage can actuaally be usefull.
As far as I know, OpenBSD tries to be fully POSIX compliant. Not just to document the points where they are not compliant. And OpenBSD is the last project I would critisize with respect to documentation.
Thanks for your clear explanation and keep up the good work.
I was trying to criticize RMS for criticizing others who "include" non-Free software while recommending GNewSense which included (includes?) non-Free software too.
Although I don't use GNewSense, I do run a blob free OS.
I am unhappy with the various distributions of BSD, because all of them include, in their installation systems, the ports system, they all include some non-free programs.
-- RMS
Source: http://cisx1.uma.maine.edu/~wbackman/bsdtalk/bsdtalk132.ogg
I don't know if you are serious, or if you are joking. I hope you are aiming for +5 funny, because I think you are, but your the point you are arguing is very close to RMS's opinion* about the evils of helping people installing less-Free software on a Free OS. Given his strong opinion on the topic of non-Free software, I can't really understand this sentence: "Since the last release, more non-free binary blobs have been removed, ....". Does that mean GNewSense included and still includes non-Free blob's?
* At least, that's what I think his point was.
I trade my linux binaries via P2P (fine - then you should have no problem of rightsholders doing file-hash-based enforcement)
I still oppose to the filtering and thus monitoring of my downloads. Especially if I'm downloading legal stuff.
I learned about band X from P2p (fine - in which case if it makese economic sense for a company or band to release thusly, they will.. it's their decision to make)
Doesn't make it legal maybe, but can make it morally acceptable to me. Why would it be illegal if you are not hurting anyone?