Im in school now for the second time around, and the first time around i paid it off making ~12k/ yr as a waiter part time. Got a loan from my parents, but it was paid off in ~ 1-2 years so not really a biggie.
Youre assuming these systems use routable IPs. There is no reason to think that is the case; cars could simply form ad-hoc networks with non-routable addresses. Theres no reason to even think theyd use ethernet.
Let me rephrase that. Basically all cryptography experts everywhere agree that so long as the key is kept secret (a big caveat), WPA2+AES is secure, as in "youre not cracking a key without quite a large amount of computational effort".
The passphrase isnt sent cleartext. With PSK-based schemes, if the other party doesnt have the key, he simply cant read the data you send.
This isnt authentication as in the AP says "whats the code", its encryption where your laptop spews out encrypted data and if the other end cant read it, oh well.
Your post is about 5 years outdated. Google 411 when it still existed was remarkably good at acting like "siri" before siri existed. Since then google's voice recognition has become quite good-- it is about 95% accurate on my android phone, and is REALLY useful with google maps ("directions to [place of work]", "gas"), texting on the go ("Text [contact]; im on my way and will be there in 5 minutes period see you soon"), etc.
You should give it a try rather than speculating, if you really want to comment.
Why yes, WPA has a pretty darn decent track record (even using a known-deficient algorithm on the backend), while WPA2 is generally acknowledged to be "secure".
Wireless hacks occur 99% of the time on open or WEP access points, and the other 1% on WPA with a poor passphrase. I dont believe anyone has actually pulled off an in-the-wild non-bruteforce hack of WPA, let alone WPA2.
Wireless radio systems have been around for about a century now, and Im not aware of anyone ever pulling off a hack of a car radio system or a radio tower through radio transmission. Just "being wireless" doesnt by itself make something vulnerable, just like just "being on the internet" doesnt make you vulnerable.
Its all about whats on the other end, and what it allows access to. Something with a lot of advanced features is going to be a lot harder to secure, while something that just tracks nearby vehicles could be remarkably easy to secure.
Rootkits arent something that enable you to hack, and thats not how hacking works. Wireless systems can be made secure, you know, and we actually have a pretty good handle on it.
What does going to college tell you about a persons character?
It tells you they have the ability to successfully complete a number of tasks given them in an unstructured environment, responsibly enough to not get kicked out.
Given the applicants I've seen walk in in the past, thats no small thing.
By the way, an applicant who isnt "submissive to authority" or who in general has issues with authority is not going to terribly impress anyone.
Applicant: Yea, I think bosses, managers, and authority in general sucks, and i try to disrespect them at all possible opportunities. HR: YOURE HIRED!
I'm guessing you would freak out when I take a big sharpie to your contract and strike out the stuff I dont like, inital the changes, and then sign it.
Seeing as how you are very likely not a contract lawyer, nor is the HR person, yes, that is silly. Tell them you will get back to them in a day after your lawyer looks at it, and then dont be surprised when another candidate has the presence of mind to seize the opportunity and your potential job.
What youre missing is that there are a lot of other people out there looking for jobs, and how many positions you are applying for or your current mood are of no consequence to them or the hiring company. If you show the disdain towards them expressed in your post, why should they not show the same disdain towards your resume?
Do some research, this info is out there if you look.
Parent isnt wrong, if you cant be bothered to put in the bare minimum effort to differentiate yourself and do some research why should you get an interview?
I like how everyone criticizing this guy brings apparently no relevant experience, instead talking about what they WOULD do, or how fast they can read a book, or how things should be.
Glad to see that speculative nonsense still gets modded up on slashdot.
1) How do you deal with a US citizen in an honest-to-goodness battlefield scenario who has defected and is providing material assistance to the enemy? Would drones be legitimate against them? Where is the line where "due process" is no longer necessary-- does it require a declaration of war and the institution of martial law?
2) How do you adjust the above and other wartime traditions to a situation where the belligerent is not a nation, but an international group with vague aims but a history of guerrilla military action (IED, 9/11, suicide bombings, vague plans to attack)? Certainly "ignore it" seems to be an under reaction.
The flaw in the system seems to be the inordinate amount of power in one agent's hands
Usually decisions like that which need to be made on the spot are not made via committee. What ultimately happens to the boat will no doubt be decided elsewhere, but the initial decision to confiscate will usually be by a single person, and reviewed later.
People are human, and if youre a jerk to an official, they may be more technical and "to the letter of the rule" than they normally might. I have a hunch that there is some legal justification, however petty, for what the agent did, that Arrington exercised his usual knack for getting into trouble, and the agent decided that it was time to be petty.
I suppose we'll find out, but in the mean-time its interesting to watch the traditional slashdot rant about how we live in an oppressive third world dictatorship and we should tear it all down to form an anarchistic utopia (or vote for Ron Paul, or whatever).
Slashdot Mirror
Im in school now for the second time around, and the first time around i paid it off making ~12k/ yr as a waiter part time. Got a loan from my parents, but it was paid off in ~ 1-2 years so not really a biggie.
Youre assuming these systems use routable IPs. There is no reason to think that is the case; cars could simply form ad-hoc networks with non-routable addresses. Theres no reason to even think theyd use ethernet.
Let me rephrase that. Basically all cryptography experts everywhere agree that so long as the key is kept secret (a big caveat), WPA2+AES is secure, as in "youre not cracking a key without quite a large amount of computational effort".
The passphrase isnt sent cleartext. With PSK-based schemes, if the other party doesnt have the key, he simply cant read the data you send.
This isnt authentication as in the AP says "whats the code", its encryption where your laptop spews out encrypted data and if the other end cant read it, oh well.
That doesnt work in statutory rape cases, why would it work here?
https://www.google.com/search?q=adblock+chrome
https://www.google.com/search?q=cross+domain+request+filter
https://www.google.com/search?q=notscripts
Youre welcome. Dont let that stop you from trotting that out every few releases, even tho these have existed for, oh, a few years now.
There are bad voice recognition progs out there. Google's is not one of them. Really, try it out in an phone store some time.
Your post is about 5 years outdated. Google 411 when it still existed was remarkably good at acting like "siri" before siri existed. Since then google's voice recognition has become quite good-- it is about 95% accurate on my android phone, and is REALLY useful with google maps ("directions to [place of work]", "gas"), texting on the go ("Text [contact]; im on my way and will be there in 5 minutes period see you soon"), etc.
You should give it a try rather than speculating, if you really want to comment.
Why yes, WPA has a pretty darn decent track record (even using a known-deficient algorithm on the backend), while WPA2 is generally acknowledged to be "secure".
Wireless hacks occur 99% of the time on open or WEP access points, and the other 1% on WPA with a poor passphrase. I dont believe anyone has actually pulled off an in-the-wild non-bruteforce hack of WPA, let alone WPA2.
Wireless radio systems have been around for about a century now, and Im not aware of anyone ever pulling off a hack of a car radio system or a radio tower through radio transmission. Just "being wireless" doesnt by itself make something vulnerable, just like just "being on the internet" doesnt make you vulnerable.
Its all about whats on the other end, and what it allows access to. Something with a lot of advanced features is going to be a lot harder to secure, while something that just tracks nearby vehicles could be remarkably easy to secure.
Hooray for sweeping generalizations! Mod this man up in the highest slashdot tradition.
Rootkits arent something that enable you to hack, and thats not how hacking works. Wireless systems can be made secure, you know, and we actually have a pretty good handle on it.
I hear there are institutions one can go to in order to receive instruction on such things....
What does going to college tell you about a persons character?
It tells you they have the ability to successfully complete a number of tasks given them in an unstructured environment, responsibly enough to not get kicked out.
Given the applicants I've seen walk in in the past, thats no small thing.
By the way, an applicant who isnt "submissive to authority" or who in general has issues with authority is not going to terribly impress anyone.
Applicant: Yea, I think bosses, managers, and authority in general sucks, and i try to disrespect them at all possible opportunities.
HR: YOURE HIRED!
Are you aware of exactly how cheap in-state tuition tends to be?
If you were wondering, most VA state schools run under $10k / year. I believe UVA is in that ballpark as well.
And in case youre still trying to figure this debt puzzle out, get a job as a waiter / burger guy / delivery guy / whatever during the breaks.
I'm guessing you would freak out when I take a big sharpie to your contract and strike out the stuff I dont like, inital the changes, and then sign it.
Seeing as how you are very likely not a contract lawyer, nor is the HR person, yes, that is silly. Tell them you will get back to them in a day after your lawyer looks at it, and then dont be surprised when another candidate has the presence of mind to seize the opportunity and your potential job.
What youre missing is that there are a lot of other people out there looking for jobs, and how many positions you are applying for or your current mood are of no consequence to them or the hiring company. If you show the disdain towards them expressed in your post, why should they not show the same disdain towards your resume?
Do some research, this info is out there if you look.
Parent isnt wrong, if you cant be bothered to put in the bare minimum effort to differentiate yourself and do some research why should you get an interview?
I like how everyone criticizing this guy brings apparently no relevant experience, instead talking about what they WOULD do, or how fast they can read a book, or how things should be.
Glad to see that speculative nonsense still gets modded up on slashdot.
There are two difficult questions here.
1) How do you deal with a US citizen in an honest-to-goodness battlefield scenario who has defected and is providing material assistance to the enemy? Would drones be legitimate against them? Where is the line where "due process" is no longer necessary-- does it require a declaration of war and the institution of martial law?
2) How do you adjust the above and other wartime traditions to a situation where the belligerent is not a nation, but an international group with vague aims but a history of guerrilla military action (IED, 9/11, suicide bombings, vague plans to attack)? Certainly "ignore it" seems to be an under reaction.
Im just curious, what is your authority for this statement? Are you involved with these politics, or perhaps an officer of some sort?
Or did your expertise come from internet echo chambers?
Nice broken links, you have me convinced.
the US is a totalitarian state now run by the corporations and paranoia merchants who exist to fuel wars
I know, Im still waiting for the day when we have elections.
Pro-tip-- totalitarian states have neither competing parties, nor term limits.
The flaw in the system seems to be the inordinate amount of power in one agent's hands
Usually decisions like that which need to be made on the spot are not made via committee. What ultimately happens to the boat will no doubt be decided elsewhere, but the initial decision to confiscate will usually be by a single person, and reviewed later.
People are human, and if youre a jerk to an official, they may be more technical and "to the letter of the rule" than they normally might. I have a hunch that there is some legal justification, however petty, for what the agent did, that Arrington exercised his usual knack for getting into trouble, and the agent decided that it was time to be petty.
I suppose we'll find out, but in the mean-time its interesting to watch the traditional slashdot rant about how we live in an oppressive third world dictatorship and we should tear it all down to form an anarchistic utopia (or vote for Ron Paul, or whatever).
they exist because of scared soccer moms who think that perceived security is worth anything, as long as their snowflakes are 'kept safe'.
Wow could you have any more contempt for "soccer moms"?
you can get anything if you keep the population in perpetual fear.
And you can justify anything if you denigrate the target of your policies enough. Theres something ironic here, but i cant quite put my finger on it.