Funny thing is, both bike.co.uk and bikes.co.uk are not yet taken.
I think your whois client needs a little fixing: they were both registered two months ago. (If it doesn't look up.uk domains automagically, as some do, add "-h whois.nic.uk" to the end of the command. Or you can just check them on the nic.uk website: bike.co.uk, bikes.co.uk.)
WHOIS database last updated at 16:00:00 17-Jan-2002
The NIC.UK Registration Host contains information ONLY for
registrations in the co.uk, org.uk, net.uk, ltd.uk, plc.uk,
sch.uk and me.uk second-level domains.
That's true, but my point isn't that malicious
users might make an evil/usr/local/bin/ls or
something-- that's a separate problem. Rather,
I'm saying that the risk of infection with
trojans is present whenever programs (ones you
run deliberately, and could conceivably run as
root), are in a directory which has at some time
been writable by a non-root user. The order of
directories in root's path isn't going to change
that, though keeping a directory
out of the path entirely might.
It's not impossible for the trojan to have infected a trusted binary, unless you're sure that root only runs programs that have always been not only writable only by root, but also in directories only writable by root.
It doesn't need to be as extreme as making/bin/ls world writable. For example, who has the right to change things in/usr/local/bin? Some distros make/usr/local/bin writable by a group called "staff", and on any system it's possible that you allow trusted users to put things in/usr/local/bin, or at least to compile programs which you then put into/usr/local/bin. And then that directory is often in root's path.
That would mean that a sufficiently trusted user who ran an infected binary could then allow the infection to spread to root. (People are often rather less careful with non-root accounts.)
Don't know about overall term ranking, but quite a few search engines allow you to view what people are searching for right now. Try metacrawler's "metaspy" for one example.
But I don't want to live in a democracy and in the USA I don't.
Fair enough. I recognise that something isn't necessarily right merely because a majority believe it to be, but then again I don't know of a better alternative system of government.
And what makes you think that a world government would be a democracy? Or a Republic?
I don't think it would necessarily be either. My post didn't mention republics at all; as for democracy, I mentioned that because the parent was talking about the effects that democracy would have on a world government-- "set by majority vote", "largest voting block".
I still don't see how the fact that different places have different customs means that they can't be governed in common. In my (perhaps limited) experience, different states of the USA have different outlooks, but nevertheless manage to subscribe to federal government.
(I should also perhaps add that the mere fact that I disagreed with two points of a posting opposing world government does not imply that I'm in favour of world government.)
Why would we even WANT a world in which people don't have the freedom to set up seperate countries
*blinks*
Uh. People in this world don't usually have the freedom to set up separate countries because they disagree with the policies of their current country, last I checked.
Do you want the largest voting block in decisions about, say, your free speech rights to be China and India?
Yes-- it's called democracy. Do you really believe the Chinese don't understand free speech? They don't have free speech-- there'd be no problem if they were voting on these free speech decisions you mention, because they'd need to have votes. (I'm not too sure what India has to do with it.)
That could be done, perhaps, using statistics on package requests by package managers. Consider, say, Debian's package server and its mirrors-- every time someone apt-gets the base packages, the server can log this as another installation. It should even be possible to implement your suggestion about the use of the machine in a similar way (is it asking for many daemon packages, or office programs?).
Of course, if you're running a cache (say, for other users on your network), you'd need to submit your figures separately; but then, users clueful enough to do this perhaps aren't usually the ones who are slipping through the current system.
Hmm. According to MS's FAQ on the subject, Winamp and others are shipping stuff that uses the Windows Media APIs, including the Windows Rights Manager parts you mentioned. The same document mentions the browser-opening feature:
Digital media files are maintained in a protected format at all times. This protected file can be freely shared between customers. When customers without a license attempt to access the shared digital media file, they are prompted to get a license for that digital media file by following the business rules specified at the hosting Web site.
Nice page. Another good one belongs to Professor Dave Touretzky (he of the anti-DMCA campaigns): it's a gallery of ways to hide DeCSS steganographically, which explains the concepts pretty well.
Someone pointed out these paragraphs to me, from the BBC's coverage of this story:
Before now, there has been speculation that Osama Bin Laden has hidden messages in pornographic images posted and swapped on Usenet, eBay and Amazon.
However, after analysing over two million images from eBay, Niels Provos and colleagues from the University of Michigan have said they found no evidence of hidden messages. Mr Provos and his colleagues are now extending their work to check more images.
"No, really, we havehave to look at more pr0n now..."
Yes, similarly here.
I've heard it suggested that this is some form of the Code Blue worm: according to Datafellows's website, CB attacks random IPs half the time, and IPs in the same/16 the other half.
The article has a spokesperson from Palm explaining why worms are unlikely to spread between wireless devices running PalmOS, but despite mentioning wireless devices running CE doesn't give any information as to whether or not it's vunerable. Does anyone have any hard information as to protection levels within the syncing process on CE? (The existence of third-party virus protection software would seem to indicate that they weren't high.)
How is the Intel-compatible platform a monopoly? There are othercompanies producing x86 compatible chips, aren't there? (Just as it's not the Windows platform that's the monopoly but the product-- that's why WINE isn't collusion with the "enemy".) my plan
The usual meaning is the one to do with inflammatory posting, as given above. (See the entry on troll in the Jargon File.) Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people on Slashdot have heard the term, but not understood it, and use it themselves as a fairly meaningless insult for people whose opinions they disagree with. my plan
Slashdot Mirror
Yes to .co.uk and .org.uk. It's rather more difficult to get a .net.uk if you're not an ISP (though some people seem to have managed it).
But the .us TLD isn't "for use anywhere"-- unlike the generic TLDs such as .com and .org, it's only for US citizens, residents and businesses. So it does have some level of specificity.
That's true: it seems I misunderstood what you meant. (The domains aren't "used", indeed, but they're certainly "taken".)
Funny thing is, both bike.co.uk and bikes.co.uk are not yet taken.
.uk domains automagically, as some do, add "-h whois.nic.uk" to the end of the command. Or you can just check them on the nic.uk website: bike.co.uk, bikes.co.uk.)
I think your whois client needs a little fixing: they were both registered two months ago. (If it doesn't look up
$ whois bikes.co.uk
Domain Name: BIKES.CO.UK
Registered For: UKIP Limited
Domain Registered By: UKIP
Record last updated on 16-Nov-2001 by .
Domain servers listed in order:
NS1.1ANETWORKS.NET 193.243.176.32
NS2.1ANETWORKS.NET 193.243.176.100
NS3.1ANETWORKS.NET 212.36.99.1
NS4.1ANETWORKS.NET 212.36.99.2
WHOIS database last updated at 16:00:00 17-Jan-2002
The NIC.UK Registration Host contains information ONLY for
registrations in the co.uk, org.uk, net.uk, ltd.uk, plc.uk,
sch.uk and me.uk second-level domains.
(bike.co.uk is pretty much identical.)
Here's Cornell's press release about it.
That's true, but my point isn't that malicious users might make an evil /usr/local/bin/ls or
something-- that's a separate problem. Rather,
I'm saying that the risk of infection with
trojans is present whenever programs (ones you
run deliberately, and could conceivably run as
root), are in a directory which has at some time
been writable by a non-root user. The order of
directories in root's path isn't going to change
that, though keeping a directory
out of the path entirely might.
It's not impossible for the trojan to have infected a trusted binary, unless you're sure that root only runs programs that have always been not only writable only by root, but also in directories only writable by root.
It doesn't need to be as extreme as making /bin/ls world writable. For example, who has the right to change things in /usr/local/bin? Some distros make /usr/local/bin writable by a group called "staff", and on any system it's possible that you allow trusted users to put things in /usr/local/bin, or at least to compile programs which you then put into /usr/local/bin. And then that directory is often in root's path.
That would mean that a sufficiently trusted user who ran an infected binary could then allow the infection to spread to root. (People are often rather less careful with non-root accounts.)
Don't know about overall term ranking, but quite a few search engines allow you to view what people are searching for right now. Try metacrawler's "metaspy" for one example.
You could use a browser that remembered form entries and prompted you with their values last time-- it would have much the same effect.
Nice. There's also the rather similar Disturbing Search Requests. There are some odd people out there.
But not on Google Groups.
But I don't want to live in a democracy and in the USA I don't.
Fair enough. I recognise that something isn't necessarily right merely because a majority believe it to be, but then again I don't know of a better alternative system of government.
And what makes you think that a world government would be a democracy? Or a Republic?
I don't think it would necessarily be either. My post didn't mention republics at all; as for democracy, I mentioned that because the parent was talking about the effects that democracy would have on a world government-- "set by majority vote", "largest voting block".
I still don't see how the fact that different places have different customs means that they can't be governed in common. In my (perhaps limited) experience, different states of the USA have different outlooks, but nevertheless manage to subscribe to federal government.
(I should also perhaps add that the mere fact that I disagreed with two points of a posting opposing world government does not imply that I'm in favour of world government.)
Why would we even WANT a world in which people don't have the freedom to set up seperate countries
*blinks*
Uh. People in this world don't usually have the freedom to set up separate countries because they disagree with the policies of their current country, last I checked.
Do you want the largest voting block in decisions about, say, your free speech rights to be China and India?
Yes-- it's called democracy. Do you really believe the Chinese don't understand free speech? They don't have free speech-- there'd be no problem if they were voting on these free speech decisions you mention, because they'd need to have votes. (I'm not too sure what India has to do with it.)
It's nothing new: .nu has been doing it for a while.
That could be done, perhaps, using statistics on package requests by package managers. Consider, say, Debian's package server and its mirrors-- every time someone apt-gets the base packages, the server can log this as another installation. It should even be possible to implement your suggestion about the use of the machine in a similar way (is it asking for many daemon packages, or office programs?).
Of course, if you're running a cache (say, for other users on your network), you'd need to submit your figures separately; but then, users clueful enough to do this perhaps aren't usually the ones who are slipping through the current system.
I thought big red buttons were supposed not to do anything.
Nice page. Another good one belongs to Professor Dave Touretzky (he of the anti-DMCA campaigns): it's a gallery of ways to hide DeCSS steganographically, which explains the concepts pretty well.
Someone pointed out these paragraphs to me, from the BBC's coverage of this story:
"No, really, we havehave to look at more pr0n now..."
Yes, similarly here. I've heard it suggested that this is some form of the Code Blue worm: according to Datafellows's website, CB attacks random IPs half the time, and IPs in the same /16 the other half.
The article has a spokesperson from Palm explaining why worms are unlikely to spread between wireless devices running PalmOS, but despite mentioning wireless devices running CE doesn't give any information as to whether or not it's vunerable. Does anyone have any hard information as to protection levels within the syncing process on CE? (The existence of third-party virus protection software would seem to indicate that they weren't high.)
Are you talking about US copyright law there, or Australian? Australian copyright lasts for fifty years after the death of the author.
>At least some translations of it are. The King James/Authorized verison isn't but most of the others are.
In the USA, perhaps. The KJV is Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom.
> So I can take the KJV cut out all the bits I don't like, add in some interesting new commandments etc and no one can stop me.
> If I do that with the NIV I'll probably get sued.
And a good thing too. It's rather like the reason we have licences such as the GPL, isn't it?
my plan
How is the Intel-compatible platform a monopoly? There are other companies producing x86 compatible chips, aren't there? (Just as it's not the Windows platform that's the monopoly but the product-- that's why WINE isn't collusion with the "enemy".)
my plan
The usual meaning is the one to do with inflammatory posting, as given above. (See the entry on troll in the Jargon File.) Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people on Slashdot have heard the term, but not understood it, and use it themselves as a fairly meaningless insult for people whose opinions they disagree with.
my plan