It is real simple: Whoever owns the systems, and their designated agents, have a right to have access. If they ask you for access, give it to them. It's that simple. You don't have to give them your password, you do have to give them a password that gives them access.
Let me provide you with a real world example: Edward Diego should have never been given access to Shodan. Sure, a hacker gave him access, not one of the station admins, but that's quibbling. The main point is that stupid people shouldn't mess with AIs controlling space mining lasers and robots.
How would you remove a row from the middle or top though?
Hmm, I clearly shouldn't design LEGO mindstorms tetris games while working; the work is distracting. Unlike a human, the computer could prevent itself from "thinking" about the move while it took extra time away to clear rows by some complicated method, but that makes it a less interesting for humans to watch (which I believe is the ultimate point).
Alright, smarty pants, they'll make tetris blocks out of LEGO® brand building blocks. Probably easier with Duplo or Quadro.
There would have to be a way to limit rotation to only one axis (easy to do with two sheets of plexiglass), and also a way to do the rotation in that axis (much harder with plexiglass in the way). Maybe forget gravity and make the robot "drop" the pieces by holding on to them from the start, then you could switch to a table, and have more stability, also you could use gravity to your advantage to remove rows (slide the whole tetris construct down and use a wedge to separate the last row, letting gravity drop the pieces into the piece reconstruction bin to be put back together (a more difficult visualization task)
I hear what you're saying, but I'll remember it like this:
"bittorrent" used as a synonym for "piracy". bittorrent has plenty of legitimate uses as a distributed filesharing platform? And I'm not just talking about Linux ISOs: One example is World of Warcraft, which has integrated bittorrent technology into it's patcher. For a piece of software that popular, using bittorrent or something similar would bring down the patch server constantly.
Bittorrent == piracy (or copyright infringement; or apparently DDOS if it brings down servers).
Because that's how the brain works apparently. You have to get someone to actually understand the protocol before they can solidify in their minds that BT is not bad, or use car analogies or something: "Cars are used in bank heists! Cars are criminal tools!"
I mean, let's say you write some program, and check your array bounds and everything. Then a year later I'm brought in as a consultant and, perhaps in the name of optimizing speed, inadvertently bypass one of your checks and introduce a buffer overflow vulnerability. Would you say that you should be held responsible for my changes? Would you say your code was simply insecure if it allowed that? Why? By what definition of "insecure"?
Failure to implement Core Wars code in the spreadsheet program. If the program were more like a rootkit, your memory-meddling to introduce a buffer overflow would be countered, your bank account would be drained, and your toaster would now be an acoustic spy device relaying sound over the electrical grid... whether or not it is plugged in!
She quotes Robert McKee's definition of good writing as 'being motivated by a desire to touch the audience.' This is not a useful definition, because a great deal of bad writing is also motivated by the same desire.
So art is only art if you like it? There's no such thing as good art and bad art? If you like it, it's art. if you don't like it, it's not art? Now I understand Ebert's position. He's not art.
The artistry of games, consumer devices, etc, is not in the interaction, it's in the design.
So if the vendor promised to you that they'd continue to support a 6-month-old buggy version that was incapable of downloading new virus signatures, you'd be glad to run that version for 5+ years without updating?
How's that McAfee '05 doing for you?
I haven't gotten a file flagged as infected in years!
--
Buy Viagra Cheap!
Zeus, for all your botnet needs.
no more updates for 0.94 means 0.94 effectively does not work.
No, if someone sent me an email containing an old virus, it would still protect against that using the last updates it ever got. When they sent the kill switch, they did one of two things: prevented email from working (apparently a default setting for a lot of those affected), or allowed all viruses through (clamav no worky, but email chugs away). While option 1 is safer than allowing clamav to run, option 2 is decidedly less safe.
I have a chemist friend who works at a University, and he has to build his own computers and upgrade his own machines because the IT department won't. Not for any good reason either, it's University equipment, doing University research, but all the IT department seems to be good for is randomly deleting his email, disabling his internet connection, and shutting down his servers. They have to be his servers, of course, because IT won't support them, god only knows why.
I know why; we used to do the same thing in corporate IT for developers (they didn't even get internet access), but it's far more common in an academic setting: Your chemist friend wanted root. He NEEDED it. It was precious to him. So IT said "okay, it's your box then, no support from us, but we'll disable its port on the switch if we detect funkiness like spamming, brute force ssh, or port sniffing everything else". And then he told you a story about how he's so abused by the evil IT where he works.
Sorry, I'm having a bad day (because of this very same BS).
Finally. All Canucks & Americans who laughed at us Europeans now get to experience how nice it is: no hassle, quiet skies, no contrails, stay-at-home and work -- or be stranded in interesting cities at your bosses' expenses !
We remember that all too well from nine and a half years ago. - 2001/09/11
Oh and helium is impractical. Bring back hydrogen. Sure it's explosive - but so is the stuff you put in your car!
Do you drive a race car? Gasoline/Petrol is not explosive. It's actually pretty safe compared to H2. Fill a bucket with gasoline and throw a lit match in; it douses the match. The vapor is flammable, but the liquid isn't. Using huge volumes of Hydrogen safely in flimsy containers is not a simple undertaking, especially if every Tom Dick and Harry has one.
Well, if this happens, people who never before even considered running Linux will start installing it en masse on their PCs or Macs. People who never before would have made the effort to learn how to install it will become quite proficient at doing so.
Um, would these be the same people who call me for help when their "e-mail is broken" because they accidentally sorted it by something other than 'Date'?
Expect a lot of calls about this spyware if it happens. DRM/Spyware schemes from the **AA seem to be very bug-riddled.
Well, considering IP is the only product that the US can actually export any more... arguably, Waterworld's earning potential IS of utmost importance to national security, otherwise, China utterly pwns us.
I say let China make a Waterworld knockoff. It can't be any good compared to the original.
RIAA, MPAA - why don't you just sell your product for a reasonable price so that more people will buy it? Make it easily downloadable and hassle-free (standard formats with no DRM).
Wouldn't that be easier than the technical and legislative shenanigans you seem so enamored of??
You seem to think they're after money. I think they have loftier aspirations. Who needs gold when you can order your subjects to do anything at sword-point?
As a parent who has gone through 7 years of infertility, I can say that I find religious objections to new fertility treatments unconscionable. The Church's belief that people who suffer from infertility should "accept the will of god" to be disgusting and akin to telling a cancer patient that they should do the same.
It's not like they're saying "suck it up" for no reason. They _really_ believe that abortion is murder and that creation of a fetus for scientific study (and mandatory destruction) is a perversion of science equal to the Nazi's death camp science. If cancer studies used the same methods, the same people _would_ oppose the studies, and would tell a cancer patient that they should do the same. Take a moment and think whether you'd like to have specific infertility studies continue if full term, born babies were euthanasized. Now realize that _that_ is the feeling that the pro-life people feel, because they don't see a difference between fetus and baby. Now that you understand where your opposition is coming from, you can now focus on the root of the matter: convince them that a fetus and a baby are irrevocably different (not in a legal sense, since that's already established, but in a biological, physical sense).
In the end, we resolved our infertility by adopting.
So instead of creating and destroying thousands of fetuses, you only needed one (created and carried to term by someone else). Look at it this way; now your baby has genes that are less prone to infertility.
Slashdot Mirror
It is real simple: Whoever owns the systems, and their designated agents, have a right to have access. If they ask you for access, give it to them. It's that simple. You don't have to give them your password, you do have to give them a password that gives them access.
Let me provide you with a real world example:
Edward Diego should have never been given access to Shodan. Sure, a hacker gave him access, not one of the station admins, but that's quibbling. The main point is that stupid people shouldn't mess with AIs controlling space mining lasers and robots.
Anyway, I think you have nothing to fear from the impending macrotechnology apocalypse unless you, or your property, are made of Legos.
I'm pretty sure our LEGO overlords can figure out how to make plastics out of biomass. It's all hydrocarbons, right?
How would you remove a row from the middle or top though?
Hmm, I clearly shouldn't design LEGO mindstorms tetris games while working; the work is distracting. Unlike a human, the computer could prevent itself from "thinking" about the move while it took extra time away to clear rows by some complicated method, but that makes it a less interesting for humans to watch (which I believe is the ultimate point).
That's the thing about robots. You can make them play with themselves and they can't figure out how to win.
Sometimes they learn to lie about winning, though. "I found 'food'" "Ha, it's really 'poison'. Losers!" *beep*
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/01/19/0258214.shtml
So will someone make Tetris blocks out of legos
No, because there's no such thing.
Alright, smarty pants, they'll make tetris blocks out of LEGO® brand building blocks. Probably easier with Duplo or Quadro.
There would have to be a way to limit rotation to only one axis (easy to do with two sheets of plexiglass), and also a way to do the rotation in that axis (much harder with plexiglass in the way). Maybe forget gravity and make the robot "drop" the pieces by holding on to them from the start, then you could switch to a table, and have more stability, also you could use gravity to your advantage to remove rows (slide the whole tetris construct down and use a wedge to separate the last row, letting gravity drop the pieces into the piece reconstruction bin to be put back together (a more difficult visualization task)
News For Apple, Stuff That Apples
Dude, you talk like you're three apples tall. La, la, la la la la, la la la la la...
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/05/0220212 "Over time, 'negation tags' fall out of memory: -Saddam didn't plan 9/11- becomes -Saddam planned 9/11.-"
I hear what you're saying, but I'll remember it like this:
"bittorrent" used as a synonym for "piracy". bittorrent has plenty of legitimate uses as a distributed filesharing platform? And I'm not just talking about Linux ISOs: One example is World of Warcraft, which has integrated bittorrent technology into it's patcher. For a piece of software that popular, using bittorrent or something similar would bring down the patch server constantly.
Bittorrent == piracy (or copyright infringement; or apparently DDOS if it brings down servers).
Because that's how the brain works apparently. You have to get someone to actually understand the protocol before they can solidify in their minds that BT is not bad, or use car analogies or something: "Cars are used in bank heists! Cars are criminal tools!"
I mean, let's say you write some program, and check your array bounds and everything. Then a year later I'm brought in as a consultant and, perhaps in the name of optimizing speed, inadvertently bypass one of your checks and introduce a buffer overflow vulnerability. Would you say that you should be held responsible for my changes? Would you say your code was simply insecure if it allowed that? Why? By what definition of "insecure"?
Failure to implement Core Wars code in the spreadsheet program. If the program were more like a rootkit, your memory-meddling to introduce a buffer overflow would be countered, your bank account would be drained, and your toaster would now be an acoustic spy device relaying sound over the electrical grid... whether or not it is plugged in!
The one case that has not been addressed by the filters is very rare and extremely unlikely to be found on a given websites.
Between now and June 8th? That's seven weeks! Seems we're lucky that we're not waiting until June 14th this year.
She quotes Robert McKee's definition of good writing as 'being motivated by a desire to touch the audience.' This is not a useful definition, because a great deal of bad writing is also motivated by the same desire.
So art is only art if you like it? There's no such thing as good art and bad art? If you like it, it's art. if you don't like it, it's not art? Now I understand Ebert's position. He's not art.
The artistry of games, consumer devices, etc, is not in the interaction, it's in the design.
it can't handle filenames with space in them without some serious hack magic.
What's the problem with File\ Name.txt?
Hacker! Hacker!
So if the vendor promised to you that they'd continue to support a 6-month-old buggy version that was incapable of downloading new virus signatures, you'd be glad to run that version for 5+ years without updating?
How's that McAfee '05 doing for you?
I haven't gotten a file flagged as infected in years!
--
Buy Viagra Cheap!
Zeus, for all your botnet needs.
no more updates for 0.94 means 0.94 effectively does not work.
No, if someone sent me an email containing an old virus, it would still protect against that using the last updates it ever got. When they sent the kill switch, they did one of two things: prevented email from working (apparently a default setting for a lot of those affected), or allowed all viruses through (clamav no worky, but email chugs away). While option 1 is safer than allowing clamav to run, option 2 is decidedly less safe.
I have a chemist friend who works at a University, and he has to build his own computers and upgrade his own machines because the IT department won't. Not for any good reason either, it's University equipment, doing University research, but all the IT department seems to be good for is randomly deleting his email, disabling his internet connection, and shutting down his servers. They have to be his servers, of course, because IT won't support them, god only knows why.
I know why; we used to do the same thing in corporate IT for developers (they didn't even get internet access), but it's far more common in an academic setting: Your chemist friend wanted root. He NEEDED it. It was precious to him. So IT said "okay, it's your box then, no support from us, but we'll disable its port on the switch if we detect funkiness like spamming, brute force ssh, or port sniffing everything else". And then he told you a story about how he's so abused by the evil IT where he works.
Sorry, I'm having a bad day (because of this very same BS).
Yeah, but have you seen Jobs's lunch kit? OMG I want one! ;)
No Joke. It keeps the warm side warm and the cold side cold. McDonalds still makes McDLTs, but only for Steve Jobs.
Finally. All Canucks & Americans who laughed at us Europeans now get to experience how nice it is: no hassle, quiet skies, no contrails, stay-at-home and work -- or be stranded in interesting cities at your bosses' expenses !
We remember that all too well from nine and a half years ago. - 2001/09/11
It's Eyjafjallajökull. I barely knew which volcano you were talking about.
Oh and helium is impractical. Bring back hydrogen. Sure it's explosive - but so is the stuff you put in your car!
Do you drive a race car? Gasoline/Petrol is not explosive. It's actually pretty safe compared to H2. Fill a bucket with gasoline and throw a lit match in; it douses the match. The vapor is flammable, but the liquid isn't. Using huge volumes of Hydrogen safely in flimsy containers is not a simple undertaking, especially if every Tom Dick and Harry has one.
Maybe you could have a few of them link up and form a Zord.
Do you mean a Voltron?
Well, if this happens, people who never before even considered running Linux will start installing it en masse on their PCs or Macs. People who never before would have made the effort to learn how to install it will become quite proficient at doing so.
Um, would these be the same people who call me for help when their "e-mail is broken" because they accidentally sorted it by something other than 'Date'?
Expect a lot of calls about this spyware if it happens. DRM/Spyware schemes from the **AA seem to be very bug-riddled.
Well, considering IP is the only product that the US can actually export any more... arguably, Waterworld's earning potential IS of utmost importance to national security, otherwise, China utterly pwns us.
I say let China make a Waterworld knockoff. It can't be any good compared to the original.
RIAA, MPAA - why don't you just sell your product for a reasonable price so that more people will buy it? Make it easily downloadable and hassle-free (standard formats with no DRM). Wouldn't that be easier than the technical and legislative shenanigans you seem so enamored of??
You seem to think they're after money. I think they have loftier aspirations. Who needs gold when you can order your subjects to do anything at sword-point?
I'm effected by endless clueless customers whining that their email server broke.
While such an occurrence would prompt me into action, I doubt it would prompt me into existence. ;)
Ew. I've watched him eat things from his beard in person, but never from his feet.
As a parent who has gone through 7 years of infertility, I can say that I find religious objections to new fertility treatments unconscionable. The Church's belief that people who suffer from infertility should "accept the will of god" to be disgusting and akin to telling a cancer patient that they should do the same.
It's not like they're saying "suck it up" for no reason. They _really_ believe that abortion is murder and that creation of a fetus for scientific study (and mandatory destruction) is a perversion of science equal to the Nazi's death camp science. If cancer studies used the same methods, the same people _would_ oppose the studies, and would tell a cancer patient that they should do the same. Take a moment and think whether you'd like to have specific infertility studies continue if full term, born babies were euthanasized. Now realize that _that_ is the feeling that the pro-life people feel, because they don't see a difference between fetus and baby. Now that you understand where your opposition is coming from, you can now focus on the root of the matter: convince them that a fetus and a baby are irrevocably different (not in a legal sense, since that's already established, but in a biological, physical sense).
In the end, we resolved our infertility by adopting.
So instead of creating and destroying thousands of fetuses, you only needed one (created and carried to term by someone else). Look at it this way; now your baby has genes that are less prone to infertility.