search for: coopt

On Tue, July 28, 2015 19:46, Warren Young wrote: > > iPads can???t be coopted into a botnet. The rules for iPad passwords > must necessarily be different than for CentOS. > http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ios-botnet-hacking,news-19253.html -- *** e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail James B. Byrne...

On Jul 28, 2015, at 2:46 PM, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com> wrote: > > My dad will absolutely stop using his iPad if it ever > requires him to use anything more than 4 numeric digits for his > password. The iPad never leaves the house. iPads can?t be coopted into a botnet. The rules for iPad passwords must necessarily be different than for CentOS. > the Mac has SSH PKA required. True, but more on-point here is that OS X ships with sshd disabled by default. You have to dig into the pref panes and tick an obscurely-named checkbox to enable it....

> On Jul 28, 2015, at 11:27, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> wrote: > > On Jul 25, 2015, at 6:22 PM, Bob Marcan wrote: >> >> 1FuckingPrettyRose >> "Sorry, you must use no fewer than 20 total characters." >> 1FuckingPrettyRoseShovedUpYourAssIfYouDon'tGiveMeAccessRightFuckingNow! >> "Sorry, you cannot use punctuation."

...badly designed and that we need to rip it up and replace it before we can address DDoSes, you?re trying to boil the ocean. We have real-world practical solutions available to us that do not require a complete redesign of the Internet. One of those is to tighten down CentOS boxes so they don?t get coopted into botnets. If instead you?re saying that DDoSes are solvable with ?just? a bit of engineering, then that?s wrong, too. It takes a really big, expensive slice of a CDN or similar to choke down a large DDoS attack. I do not accept that as a necessary cost of doing business. That?s like a 166...

On 5 May 2016 at 13:23, C Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > Is the list PG, PG-13, R or at what level do "we" adults all consider > "ok". Even on broadcast tv (in the US) you'll hear some profanity. > (context) > https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts Excellent context! > Some people have pointed

...on of the type that Hadley and > Lionel need in the language. This could be solved without allowing > user-defined unary specials, and we would probably want it to be, as I doubt > ~ %!%x + %!%y + z is particularly aesthetically appealing to most (it isn't > to me). I'd propose coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list > discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" > operator. > > Best, > ~G > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester...

...on of the type that Hadley and > Lionel need in the language. This could be solved without allowing > user-defined unary specials, and we would probably want it to be, as I doubt > ~ %!%x + %!%y + z is particularly aesthetically appealing to most (it isn't > to me). I'd propose coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list > discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" > operator. > > Best, > ~G > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester...

I agree there is no reason they _need_ to be the same precedence, but I think SPECIALS are already have the proper precedence for both unary and binary calls. Namely higher than all the binary operators (except for `:`), but lower than the other unary operators. Even if we gave unary specials their own precedence I think it would end up in the same place. `%l%` <- function(x) tail(x, n =

...e have quasi quotation of the type that Hadley and Lionel need in the language. This could be solved without allowing user-defined unary specials, and we would probably want it to be, as I doubt ~ %!%x + %!%y + z is particularly aesthetically appealing to most (it isn't to me). I'd propose coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" operator. Best, ~G On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Jim Hester <james.f.hester at gmail.com> w...

...language. This could be solved without allowing >> > user-defined unary specials, and we would probably want it to be, as I >> > doubt >> > ~ %!%x + %!%y + z is particularly aesthetically appealing to most (it >> > isn't >> > to me). I'd propose coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list >> > discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's >> > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" >> > operator. >> > >> > Best, >> > ~G...

...n 5 hours since I started the read request and > > the disk swap > > is so busy that I cannot tell when the process will finish. > > There does > > appear to be a problem with this R job using system swap > > space on Mosix so > > a quick test and fix for this is coopt another machine and > > aggregate some > > RAM from another machine - if there is physical space in the machine - > > sometime tommorow hopefully. > > > > Stay tuned. > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Robin for this email. I am able to repr...

...> > Lionel need in the language. This could be solved without allowing > > user-defined unary specials, and we would probably want it to be, as I > doubt > > ~ %!%x + %!%y + z is particularly aesthetically appealing to most (it > isn't > > to me). I'd propose coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list > > discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think it's > > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" > > operator. > > > > Best, > > ~G > > > > On...

...badly designed and that we need to rip it up and replace it before we can address DDoSes, you?re trying to boil the ocean. We have real-world practical solutions available to us that do not require a complete redesign of the Internet. One of those is to tighten down CentOS boxes so they don?t get coopted into botnets. > > If instead you?re saying that DDoSes are solvable with ?just? a bit of engineering, then that?s wrong, too. It takes a really big, expensive slice of a CDN or similar to choke down a large DDoS attack. I do not accept that as a necessary cost of doing business. That?s...

...olved without allowing > >> > user-defined unary specials, and we would probably want it to be, as I > >> > doubt > >> > ~ %!%x + %!%y + z is particularly aesthetically appealing to most (it > >> > isn't > >> > to me). I'd propose coopting unary @ for that myself. After off list > >> > discussions with Jonathan Carrol and with Michael Lawrence I think > it's > >> > doable, unambiguous, and even imo pretty intuitive for an "unquote" > >> > operator. > >> > > >&g...

Once upon a time, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com> said: > Much of the evil on the Internet today ? DDoS armies, spam spewers, phishing botnets ? is done on pnwed hardware, much of which was compromised by previous botnets banging on weak SSH passwords. Since most of that crap comes from Windows hosts, the security of Linux SSH passwords seems hardly relevant. > Your freedom to use