Posts by Goldie 13 publicly visible posts • joined 20 Apr 2007
Yes, I know and put some thought whether to follow the chain Greeks->Romans->French->Vikings/Normans (William I), and skipped it because it is way too windy :) It seems I should have put at least some shortened version. My only excuse can be that I was afraid it would be too complex for an U.S. citizen who does not know even his own country's history what to talk about other continents.
>>> ... miles, inches, feet and yards, ..., a sort of English, because yes - you guessed it - we were your colonial masters.
Up to here you are absolutely correct
>>> Somewhere along the way you lot got a bit bolshy, and changed the fluid measures.
I am sorry to disagree with you but IT IS AGAIN because New World colonies were under Empire's control at that time. When U.S.A. rebelled against the mainland the number of measures, all called gallon (!) were in use - wet, dry, grain gallon, etc. Because each one of these was measuring different ammount (even some volume were by volume while others were by weight), so Queen Victoria set the new Imperial gallon, now sometimes referred as UK gallon. U.S.A. were "sticking to traditions" all over their long-long (2 centuries) history, so are still using the gallon from 1780s. The latter is rather incorrectly called US gallon, while it is still an UK gallon but an obsolete one!
------------
P.S. Dear Befuddled American, please learn some history and educate yourself. Contrary to the widespread belief in U.S.A., even the democracy WAS NOT invented in your homeland! Actually Magna Carta was "invented" / "discovered" (maybe just written) guess where - yeeees, good job, in Great Britain indeed.
"Since there are things which I cannot currently do under Linux"
You can do what I did (of course if you find it useful). I installed Linux and VMware Server, and am now running Windoze in a VM. Yes, I do agree VMware is another closed source but their attitude towards the customer is much better. So now my vulnerable thin-glassware called Windows lives in its own DMZ, and the mighty penguin is protecting it from the Big Bad Internet.
"Some companies have moved past the bus concept, ..."
As others already pointed out, INMOS did this nearly 30 years ago. It is possible that the author was not interested in IT at that era but surely should have noticed the internal architecture of IBM Power4/5/6 Multi-Chip Modules (MCMs)! Al right, I do agree that 64-core p590/p595 is lot bigger than a single chip but that is evolution, not revolution. OTOH there is no info what should one do if H.M. The Customer wants (65+)-core box, while with transputers much bigger scalability was achieved (I repeat, 30 years ago).
It seems that the "experts" make no difference between robots.txt and .htaccess files!! While the latter indeed serves a functionality similar to lock the former is just a notice.
A real life example to IT illiterate laweyrs: putting in a public building a sign forbidding taking pictures (what actually web archives do) still does not put any technical obstacles preventing the public to use their bare eyes. What on Earth can prevent a determined councel to give an order to few interns with browsers ("click on every hyperlink if it keeps you on that web site"), and to dig through results.
Copyrighting a book does forbid to make illegal copies of it but AFAIK does not prevent reading it (if one is literate enough)!
It all hangs more or less whether this used to be a sanctioned relationship or not. I would be really interested to learn how parents gave such generous OK in the beginning just to cry "foul" afterwards. It might be that the boy increased his "level" a bit, she was somewhat shy about hers, so their were assuiming the beloved son was going to date someone around their son's age. Maybe only after her arrival they solved the equaition "few years difference" means 14, and rang the bell.
************************
My dear loved Mike,
Unfortunately I have to disappoint you - being born, grown, and living in Europe, I prefer to continue that way. FYI, I've paid several visits to U.S.A. and ... am NOT interested to go there again. More than that - despite clear business benefits (up to 20-25% increase in my yearly income) if I go there, I am not interested to be treated as a criminal on the border just because a huge U.S. corporation is willing to pay for me. There are many other countries and/or corporations on that globe, you know.
For obvious reasons I not going to be more intimate with you - waves of childish emotions are coming from your post, so will avoid you to be on the safe side!
************************
Is the article making ad hominem remarks only because the author cannot prove the vulnerability statement incorrect or there are other reasons?
Consider for a split second that Mr. de Raadt have got those 2 million back in 2003. I would be interested to understand how any sum can land in my pocket to cover MY losses if MY server is going to be compromised as result of running ANY operating system other than OpenBSD! If one's answer is "no chance", I can guess it myself with ease.
I personally trust the professional competence of Theo de Raadt, he have proved it enough times. The argument here revolves more around people being pro-Intel and anti-Intel instead of discussing the merrits of de Raadt's conclusions. Hope he will not follow the fate of Cassandra.
Why should we be surprised when Windows comes bundled with a lot of malware by itself! Just look at the "Automatic Updates" service - isn't it the biggest botnet in the current days Internet? I have tried many many times to remove all unnecessary bells'n'whistles like Outlook Express, MS Messenger, Media Player, etc. in order to achieve only an OS loaded on the machine. What to say about not running network-bound services (like W32Time) without explicitly requested to do so, or about the imposibility to close port 139? Obviously I had no success in last 10 years with all the versions of Windows.
OTOH we have to differentiate between the Windows fault (being insecure by default) and the customer's fault (give me those bells'n'whistles regardles whether they are secure or not).
I fully agree with both Hamish and Henry - the demand in my services can decrease by up to 80% if Microsoft finally manages to get a secure operating system out of the door. So God bless Bill Gates, the religion he founded and the endless pockets of his followers - I am earning my living on them all!
Hundred years ago it was required by law that a man with red flag should walk in front of the car. Some of the commenters above might be interested in resurrection of such legal requirement.
Yes indeed, everyone can appeal to have this kid sent to jail (and it would take place). But the real question is whether this would remove the risk of other kids doing the same? I would say "no", given how often the car is treated as a measurement of social success, and a tool for show off.
If one desires to enable source routing within the borders of his/her network, so be it. Telnet and HTTP are still insecure but no one is disabling them just because of that. Instead everyone is having the option to use their secured versions or to use them as they are.
Several points to comment:
1. The title is dull indeed. However we should not blame the messenger for the content of what he have brought. While the source routing might be classified as undesirable feature, and turning it on by default can be unsecure, this is not a flaw of the protocol. A flaw is to assume 640kB memory big enough for the centuries to come, or to assign a whole class A network to a company with 300k employees. But that's the business of news making and getting the message to the customer - if one does not use such a "keyword", (s)he risks losing the attention of already annoyed audience.
2. It is questionable whether this feature had to be caried on from IP v4 to v6 - the set of valid uses is rather limited, and even in those ones there always can be found a better solution. However I have not seen the script of the discussions before setting IPv6 in stone, so cannot comment why the functionality was kept. There is no need for a standard which suits me and me only.
3. The real problem for me is the reaction to the issue with potential malicious usage of <something>! First reaction is the usage of strong words instead of brain activity. The second reaction is just panic - looking at the so called "patch" in OpenBSD (ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/patches/4.0/common/012_route6.patch) one can see that the code is just commented out using an include statement. A REAL programmer would document the potential security implications instead of disabling a functionality.
Obviously Dr. Hiraki needs to leave the university for a while and to visit some school - he needs few lessons in reading and mathematics:
a. there are many many standards for 10Gbit Ethernet physical layer (OSI L1) but the most popular one does support two bitrates - 9.953 and ... 10.3 Gbit/s;
b. 10% over the achieved 9.08 makes 9.988 Gbit/s which indeed cannot be exceeded on a 9.953 but should not be a big issue for a 10.3 Gbit network.
If one does not trust the biggest team blog on Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_gigabit_Ethernet#LAN_PHY), just looking at some vendor specifications (http://www.digchip.com/datasheets/parts/datasheet/368/PM5390.php / http://www.pmc-sierra.com/products/details/pm5390/) should prove the existence of the ten-plus-epsilon bitrate.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
