IBM would have pressed charges. Thats why they took the clean room approach.
The important difference is that with current legislation 'Merkins aren't even allowed to do a clean-room implementation if the original is stored in ROT-13... --
The outlook worms work just fine with default user privileges, so Unix doesn't really solve the problem any more than NT/Win2K do (under which you can also create bogus accounts in 30 seconds, BTW).
Create them, maybe. But to run anything under such accounts is a lot more complicated than simply "su -c suspicious sandbox".
Microsoft does still have some issues with true multi user concepts. One point I run into frequently is that you can't connect to the same remote host using two different user IDs for different shares or that it's pretty hard to make Windows forget authentication info you once supplied (I used to have some external developers who stopped by once a week, and I could access their W2k shares for months after they had once typed their password in my Explorer (yeah, my NT workstation really had 68 days of uptime, then!:))) And though the NT kernel can run processes as different users fine, there's not way for the common user to access that functionality.
Unix on the other hand is so multi-user that it's sometimes remarkably difficult to do single user things. --
It seems to me that there's an interesting problem facing websites targeted at (potentially) large audiences; if the site is good, and gets popular, they're likely going to reach a point where meager ad/subscription revenues can't keep up with bandwidth costs.
Well, that's a problem that has been pretty well solved outside the clickedy-colourful world of commercial web sites. People set up mirrors all
around the world for all kinds of stuff, and so everyone gets to take a share of the bandwidth costs. The problem I see with this is that Internet bandwidth is getting more and more asynchronous (ever since the 56k modem, upstream has been sacrificed for faster downstream, with ISDN being the notable exception), and so individuals will have trouble keeping up a usable link when DSL users hammer their site. But that's a completely different rant:)
So, if you're worried about bandwidth cost, find a good incentive and let people do your hosting, akamai-Style:)
And 9.6kb/s is easily fast enough for web browsing, if it is with gzip compression (which in practice seems to double or triple downloading speed) and without pictures.
A constant 9.6kb/s would be great for web browsing... What you get in reality (I've got a Nokia 9110, so I frequently use TCP and
HTTP over GSM) is somewhere around 200-300 bytes
per second and long stand-stills, due to packet loss on the wireless link and TCP's reaction (retransmission kills speed because the window size rarely goes up to anything usable and round trips aren't below 1s with the slow link).
Loading a 10k web page easily takes a minute or more, and that becomes pretty annoying. I prefer
to telnet to my shell account and lynx stuff there... Small packets seem to work kinda well.
The US Naval observatory broadcasts the atomically correct time all over america. Why can't the VCR set it's own damn clock?
Actually, the answer to this one is pretty easy... because the extra equipment to receive the signal would cost another USD nn (my guess is 20, which is significant in the low end market),thereby increasing product cost.
And, come to think about it, getting an UPS for everything that stores transient data is probably a general solution to this "problem"... --
What really pisses me off about this is that there is not a single bit of information on what is vulnerable... Guardent claims they 'wanted to make the public aware of the problem while working with vendors', but what other information than 'Guardent is great' has been released?
I still don't know which of my systems are vulnerable and which I can securely leave on the net assured that noone is misusing them as a DDoS tool without me being able to do something about it (and no, you can't require IPSEC for people connecting to a web server).
If Guardent doesn't release the details, they could at least tell us what systems are affected before touting this as a 'major problem'.
(User #11039 Info) http://we.areb.org
So they're saying that if you can predict the port number that will be assigned to a session, you can hijack it?
No, they're not saying that. They're talking about TCP sequence numbers. --
C'mon, perhaps you should simply read the law instead of what people are saying it is on slashdot.
The anti-circumvention rule specifically excludes law enforcement purposes amongst other things.
A friend of a friend, who claims to be ex NSA, when asked about PGP, after a few beers, smiled, laughed and said something about the session keys not being as random as people might imagine.
Yeah. If your friend is ex-NSA they probably fired him for lack of cluons.
What sessions? -- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
Andrews, the Internet industry analyst, said it is unclear what direction Google will travel in the coming years. While Google has carved out a niche in providing searches, he said, that is a relatively limited business.
Yeah, thanks a lot. That's exactly why the web is going to end up as a big mess of banner ads and blink tags. This stupid commercial attitude that everything has to grow bigger and crush the competition.
I mean, Google is providing a great search engine. Someone with a brain would now say, "wow, that's fine, we can even make a living off it", but the first thing the analyst sees is "we've got a core product, how can we put on a ton of crap to make more money out of it?"
That's why you can't use deja.com nowadays, that's why yahoo.com is unusable und altavista.com is on its best way with every new layout change.
All that shows one of the core problems with the dot-com-hype, every company that goes public suddenly transforms its goals from "providing the best <xyz>" to "reaping maximum profit". And, contrary to popular American belief, this is not the single reason for the existence of business. Personally, I know lots of people who work in small software companies, and all they care about is producing the best product while getting paid a decent salary, not getting rich, or world domination...
So, thumbs up for Google, and while I wish them success, may their IPO be off a long way!
-- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
They don't change the posts, they are still around everywhere on Usenet in their original form.
All they should do IMO is add a little notice saying "|> links were added by deja.com" on the page to make things _really_ clear.
And even if they don't, they just change the markup, the deja.com links are clearly visible as not added by the author because the text/plain format of Usenet messages doesn't allow adding links, you can only type URLs, and those are still displayed by deja.com as they should be.
-- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
"Besides which, wouldn't a UDP, assuming it were enforced, rather spoil the other point of Deja, which is being a useful Usenet archive?"
No, it wouldn't. Read "1. What is a UDP?", and what I said in the comment you replied to.
It would only disallow people to use Deja's web interface to post to Usenet. -- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
"What deja does, even in their normal use, probably exceeds that implicit license, and fair use. Anyway, I have just sent them a digitally signed formal takedown notice under DMCA asking them to take down all my posts from their site, and preventing their site to include my further postings."
Could you pleasy state your reason for doing so? It seems your Usenet posts would be a loss for lots of people looking for help on deja.com, and the number of people knowing about your web site that archives most articles is limited in comparison.
Probably I'm a bit naive here, but don't you think the general use people can make of your articles on deja.com exceeds the nuisance of deja.com making money of your IP? -- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
"ObDisclaimer: I only use deja.com about once every 6 months, so I'm not that familiar with their service... That said, if they passed through extant hyperlinks unmolested, while marking automagically inserted deja.com hyperlinks, maybe with a small image tag at the end of the link, they might avoid some of this confusion."
Whoopeedoo, that's exactly what they do.
And probably all the people bitching around here never use deja.com or even post something useful to Usenet.
http://deja.com/home_ps.shtml is _the_ single most important source of information on the Web for me, because people on Usenet still know what they do most of the time and finding answers to specific problems is much easier on deja.com than with general Web search engines. -- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
Start putting the X-Header into your articles now, and when they're done implementing it the links will no longer appear when someone looks at your article.
I wonder whether most posts here are inspired by simple ignorance of technical basics involved or by advanced paranoia.
-- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
http://www.stopspam.org/usenet/faqs/udp.html might do for example. (And hey,/., don't even try making this A HREF, you're modifying my posts, they're copyrighted, whine, whine...)
UDP isn't about not feeding them articles, it's about not _taking_ articles originating there.
And fortunately, people who decide UDPs have more brains the average Slashdotter.
-- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
"But instead, they are clearly attempting to co-opt a long-standing community resource and profit from it -- without returning value to the community"
So they don't return value to the community. _I_ think it constitutes some kind of value when I can use deja.com's Usenet archive to find answers to my problems without polluting newsgroups with a FAQ for the 10000th time.
I also highly value this as a Usenet reader who can look up almost every article by Message-ID, no matter when or where it was posted and refer everyone to it (try linking to another News article without reposting it... there's always someone who doesn't have it on their server).
No value? More than you, anyway.
-- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
I embed them as God wanted us to embed them in Usenet articles, text/plain, just typing the URL. They _are_ clearly discernable for anyone with a brain from the deja.com links and are of course still available in the "text only" ("Original Usenet Format" really describes it better) version. -- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
AFAIR they claimed that this was a temporary measure for migrating the data to some other system. And taking them offline still means they _have_ them lying around somewhere, which someone else starting an archive _now_ doesn't.
-- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
Well, if I post 'I think this IBM modem is the worst crap I have ever seen', then the link probably won't recommend anything... And if you're too stupid to recognize deja's links you're probably too stupid for Usenet and the Internet in general. -- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
How do you add links? I just checked a few articles from me containing URLs, and they were embedded the way I embedded them, text only and in the correct http://yadda/ notation.
Deja Links are marked with the little orange > and have the word instead of the URL highlighted.
If you're, on the other hand, using HTML in your articles, you should stay away from Usenet anyway.
-- "The use of COBOL cripples the mind. Its teaching, therefore, should be
Slashdot Mirror
IBM would have pressed charges. Thats why they took the clean room approach.
The important difference is that with current legislation 'Merkins aren't even allowed to do a clean-room implementation if the original is stored in ROT-13...
--
Create them, maybe. But to run anything under such accounts is a lot more complicated than simply "su -c suspicious sandbox".
Microsoft does still have some issues with true multi user concepts. One point I run into frequently is that you can't connect to the same remote host using two different user IDs for different shares or that it's pretty hard to make Windows forget authentication info you once supplied (I used to have some external developers who stopped by once a week, and I could access their W2k shares for months after they had once typed their password in my Explorer (yeah, my NT workstation really had 68 days of uptime, then! :))) And though the NT kernel can run processes as different users fine, there's not way for the common user to access that functionality.
Unix on the other hand is so multi-user that it's sometimes remarkably difficult to do single user things.
--
It's a shame the links in IS KATZ ON CRACK? are broken. Does anyone know what they pointed to?
--
Well, that's a problem that has been pretty well solved outside the clickedy-colourful world of commercial web sites. People set up mirrors all around the world for all kinds of stuff, and so everyone gets to take a share of the bandwidth costs. The problem I see with this is that Internet bandwidth is getting more and more asynchronous (ever since the 56k modem, upstream has been sacrificed for faster downstream, with ISDN being the notable exception), and so individuals will have trouble keeping up a usable link when DSL users hammer their site. But that's a completely different rant :)
So, if you're worried about bandwidth cost, find a good incentive and let people do your hosting, akamai-Style :)
--
A constant 9.6kb/s would be great for web browsing... What you get in reality (I've got a Nokia 9110, so I frequently use TCP and HTTP over GSM) is somewhere around 200-300 bytes per second and long stand-stills, due to packet loss on the wireless link and TCP's reaction (retransmission kills speed because the window size rarely goes up to anything usable and round trips aren't below 1s with the slow link).
Loading a 10k web page easily takes a minute or more, and that becomes pretty annoying. I prefer to telnet to my shell account and lynx stuff there... Small packets seem to work kinda well.
--
Now, a free bear is definitely a bad thing, at least in my living room. And I guess I wouldn't want one in my server closet, either.
But what's that "speach" thing you're talking about? Some kind of genetically engineered fruit? I wonder...
--
Actually, Mattel should sue Britney's parents, or perhaps humanity in general for creating people who
look like the dolls they sell.
--
Read a review to get an impression of just how bad it really was.
--
Actually, the answer to this one is pretty easy... because the extra equipment to receive the signal would cost another USD nn (my guess is 20, which is significant in the low end market),thereby increasing product cost.
And, come to think about it, getting an UPS for everything that stores transient data is probably a general solution to this "problem"...
--
I still don't know which of my systems are vulnerable and which I can securely leave on the net assured that noone is misusing them as a DDoS tool without me being able to do something about it (and no, you can't require IPSEC for people connecting to a web server).
If Guardent doesn't release the details, they could at least tell us what systems are affected before touting this as a 'major problem'.
--
(User #11039 Info) http://we.areb.org So they're saying that if you can predict the port number that will be assigned to a session, you can hijack it? No, they're not saying that. They're talking about TCP sequence numbers.
--
C'mon, perhaps you should simply read the law instead of what people are saying it is on slashdot.
The anti-circumvention rule specifically excludes law enforcement purposes amongst other things.
--
A friend of a friend, who claims to be ex NSA, when asked about PGP, after a few beers, smiled, laughed and said something about the session keys not being as random as people might imagine.
Yeah. If your friend is ex-NSA they probably fired him for lack of cluons.
What sessions?
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
Andrews, the Internet industry analyst, said it is unclear what direction Google will travel in the coming years. While Google has carved out a niche in providing searches, he said, that is a relatively limited business.
Yeah, thanks a lot. That's exactly why the web is going to end up as a big mess of banner ads and blink tags. This stupid commercial attitude that everything has to grow bigger and crush the competition.
I mean, Google is providing a great search engine. Someone with a brain would now say, "wow, that's fine, we can even make a living off it", but the first thing the analyst sees is "we've got a core product, how can we put on a ton of crap to make more money out of it?"
That's why you can't use deja.com nowadays, that's why yahoo.com is unusable und altavista.com is on its best way with every new layout change.
All that shows one of the core problems with the dot-com-hype, every company that goes public suddenly transforms its goals from "providing the best <xyz>" to "reaping maximum profit". And, contrary to popular American belief, this is not the single reason for the existence of business. Personally, I know lots of people who work in small software companies, and all they care about is producing the best product while getting paid a decent salary, not getting rich, or world domination...
So, thumbs up for Google, and while I wish them success, may their IPO be off a long way!
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
They don't change the posts, they are still around everywhere on Usenet in their original form.
All they should do IMO is add a little notice saying "|> links were added by deja.com" on the page to make things _really_ clear.
And even if they don't, they just change the markup, the deja.com links are clearly visible as not added by the author because the text/plain format of Usenet messages doesn't allow adding links, you can only type URLs, and those are still displayed by deja.com as they should be.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
"Besides which, wouldn't a UDP, assuming it were enforced, rather spoil the other point of Deja, which is being a useful Usenet archive?"
No, it wouldn't. Read "1. What is a UDP?", and what I said in the comment you replied to.
It would only disallow people to use Deja's web interface to post to Usenet.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
"What deja does, even in their normal use, probably exceeds that implicit license, and fair use.
Anyway, I have just sent them a digitally signed formal takedown notice under DMCA asking them to take down all my posts from their site, and preventing their site to include my further postings."
Could you pleasy state your reason for doing so? It seems your Usenet posts would be a loss for lots of people looking for help on deja.com, and the number of people knowing about your web site that archives most articles is limited in comparison.
Probably I'm a bit naive here, but don't you think the general use people can make of your articles on deja.com exceeds the nuisance of deja.com making money of your IP?
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
"ObDisclaimer: I only use deja.com about once every 6 months, so I'm not that familiar with their service... That said, if they passed through extant hyperlinks unmolested, while marking automagically inserted deja.com hyperlinks, maybe with a small image tag at the end of the link, they might avoid some of this confusion."
Whoopeedoo,
that's exactly what they do.
And probably all the people bitching around here never use deja.com or even post something useful to Usenet.
http://deja.com/home_ps.shtml is _the_ single most important source of information on the Web for me, because people on Usenet still know what they do most of the time and finding answers to specific problems is much easier on deja.com than with general Web search engines.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
So what?
Start putting the X-Header into your articles now, and when they're done implementing it the links will no longer appear when someone looks at your article.
I wonder whether most posts here are inspired by simple ignorance of technical basics involved or by advanced paranoia.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
Go find some _real_ information.
/., don't even try making this A HREF, you're modifying my posts, they're copyrighted, whine, whine...)
http://www.stopspam.org/usenet/faqs/udp.html
might do for example.
(And hey,
UDP isn't about not feeding them articles, it's about not _taking_ articles originating there.
And fortunately, people who decide UDPs have more brains the average Slashdotter.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
"But instead, they are clearly attempting to co-opt a long-standing community resource and profit from it -- without returning value to the community"
So they don't return value to the community. _I_ think it constitutes some kind of value when I can use deja.com's Usenet archive to find answers to my problems without polluting newsgroups with a FAQ for the 10000th time.
I also highly value this as a Usenet reader who can look up almost every article by Message-ID, no matter when or where it was posted and refer everyone to it (try linking to another News article without reposting it... there's always someone who doesn't have it on their server).
No value? More than you, anyway.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
I use links in my Usenet posts all the time.
I embed them as God wanted us to embed them in Usenet articles, text/plain, just typing the URL. They _are_ clearly discernable for anyone with a brain from the deja.com links and are of course still available in the "text only" ("Original Usenet Format" really describes it better) version.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
AFAIR they claimed that this was a temporary measure for migrating the data to some other system. And taking them offline still means they _have_ them lying around somewhere, which someone else starting an archive _now_ doesn't.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
Well, if I post 'I think this IBM modem is the worst crap I have ever seen', then the link probably won't recommend anything...
And if you're too stupid to recognize deja's links you're probably too stupid for Usenet and the Internet in general.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
Think for a minute.
How do you add links? I just checked a few articles from me containing URLs, and they were embedded the way I embedded them, text only and in the correct http://yadda/ notation.
Deja Links are marked with the little orange > and have the word instead of the URL highlighted.
If you're, on the other hand, using HTML in your articles, you should stay away from Usenet anyway.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be