It was bad enough when your company was named after a duck instead of a penguin.
A duck? A drake is a male duck, but a mandrake is a poisonous plant that is supposed to have magical powers, probably because it's root looks like a human figure. Didn't you ever play King's Quest?
Is there something I'm missing or is this duck thing just confusion because of the word "drake" being in the name?
Chances are you could have the RFID reader built into the traffic light. And if I'm not mistaken, many cities already have their traffic light systems wired into computers. It allows them to monitor operation and to open up traffic lanes for emergency vehicles. It shouldn't be difficult to send the RFID data down the same path.
It works at a range sufficient to work in toll booths. What's to prevent the state from putting up a reader on the street corner? On every street corner? On every mile marker sign on the highway?
Why would they want to do that? Well, how about crime fighting, to start? If a house is broken into, they have an instant record of every car that's been into the neighborhood. How about speeding tickets? If you go from one mile marker to the next in less than 60 seconds, you're going more than 60 miles per hour.
But, even if it might help catch a few burglers, do you really want the state tracking every location where you drive your vehicle?
I'm sure there are some bad effects from CRT's, both in eyesight and other health areas. But whatever those ill effects are, I'd wager that they're not near as bad as the effects of sitting on your butt for 12 to 16 hours a day.
While I don't necessarily know that this is a good idea, the answer to your problem is relatively simple. You don't need to wipe the entire disk. All you need to do is wipe the areas that contain sensitive information. And we aren't talking about any and all sensitive data; just the files assoicated with the new Passport alternative. Keep a list of dirty clusters - clusters that have been used to store sensitive information. If they're no longer being used (say, because a defrag moved the files to a new location), they can be wiped while the system is otherwise idle. When you prep the system for resale, all you have to wipe is a few clusters. I can't see the sensitive info taking up that much room.
I'm not a TiVo users, so I'm not familiar with the details of the device. How are these ads delivered? Is it through a TV channel, through an IP connection or some other way? If it's IP, seems like a simple firewall tweak would fix the problem. If it's some other method, it might be more difficult to install a filter but it shouldn't be impossible.
If you really want to understand regexes, get Jeffrey E. E. Friedl's "Mastering Regular Expressions" from O'Reilly. It's much deeper than the casaul reader will ever need, but if you get through it you will certainly know how regexes work from both a user perspective and from a regex engine perspective.
It was used a lot later than the '70s. I joined the Navy in 1985 and I received a number of innoculations using these. I can't say for certain but organic ram suggests it continued until the mid '90s.
They weren't any less painful than a needle, but they were much quicker and they were foolproof. Literally anybody could use one. You just put it against the arm and pull the trigger.
I believe they were discontinued because of safety reasons. I believe they found out that there was a possibility of microdrops of blood being blasted back out of the skin, and then injected into the next person.
Uh, how about one of the biggest drivers of broadband service? You know, games? If Evercrack or UT starts getting laggy, you're going to have a lot of pissed off customers.
Just to refine what you said a bit for any lurkers who may not be familiar with AD, AD is segmented by domains. All domains in a forest share a common schema, but not a common LDAP database. (There's a second database, called the Global Catalog, that IS common to and replicated across all domains.) If you do have an area that is connected by a low-speed connection, you can minimize replication traffic by giving it its own domain. Additionally, you can establish site links and designate bridgehead servers between sites. Within a site, all domain controllers replicate with each other, but all replication between sites is done via the bridgehead server. You can configure when the bridgeheads replicate. For example, you might restrict replication to night hours when the LAN sees less use and has more free bandwidth.
So there is justice to what you say - AD is a bit of a bandwidth hog compared to other versions of LDAP. But there are tools and configuration options that will allow you to manage and control replication traffic.
Re:Can somebody answer this
on
Deploying OpenLDAP
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'll probably get crucified for this, but the Microsoft Press books on Active Directory actually get this right. It's specificially focused on Active Directory, of course, but there's a lot of it that is applicable to any form of LDAP. MS recommends that you configure your sites (essentially, units of replication) based upon geography and you configure your LDAP based upon the IT organization. Factors to take into account include administration responsibilities and security concerns. Sometimes, this coincides with geography. If you have local admins at each location, it might make sense to put users and computers at each location in a seperate OU. You can then delegate full admin control of the OU to the admins at that location. On the other hand, in a different structure it might make sense to divide your OUs up by departments, with, for example, everybody in Sales in one OU, regardless of which location they work.
LOL. Indeed. The original Chronicles. I finished The Runes of the Earth not too long ago, which inspired me to go back and reread the First and Second Chronicles again. It had been some seven or eight years since I'd read them. I'm nearly finished with The Power that Preserves.
I looked up "roynish" when I originally read the series but couldn't remember what it meant. For some reason, I kept thinking "foxlike," but that wasn't it.
If you read much Donaldson or Gene Wolfe, it helps to have either an Unabridged Dictionary or a 'Net connection handy.
It might be a cleaner interface but it doesn't seem to be near as comprehensive. For example, I looked up the word "roynish" earlier today. Google drew a blank. Dictionary.com had it. This isn't the first time this has happened, although I don't recall the other words off the top of my head.
While what you say is correct, I fail to see how it in any way contradicts the post to which you replied. Certainly, there are lots of different pricing models you could implement. Which would earn you more - $.05 per song or $5.00 per month for up to 100 songs? How about $.10 per song for the first 20 songs, then $.05 per song for the rest of the month? And of course that's just a couple of examples that barely scratch the surface. But the law of supply and demand does underlie all of those different scenarios. It isn't as simple as doubling the price and doubling the profit.
119 other individuals figured they too should follow the directions to hack in and learn the results
Did they? "Hack" in, that is? The original post describing how to access the information was deleted, and the article doesn't say what was involved. If getting to your personal results required firing up Metasploit, then I'd agree with you. They deserve to lose their acceptance and any other punishment that comes their way.
But if the "hack" was something similar to typing "http://www.harvard.com/results?first+last" into a browser and entering your password when asked, then I strongly disagree. I have a hard time seeing where such an act is so unethical or deceptive as to deserve to lose acceptance. It's the difference between stealing $50 from someone's wallet and finding it laying on the ground and not turning it in to Lost and Found.
Well, that was my question. The only place I've seen clockskew used is in the Kerberos protocol, and there it measures the amount of time that the client clock differs from the server clock. If that's not what they're talking about, then what precisely are they measuring? The amount of drift - that is, how fast the clock gains or loses time?
Over time add and subtract will average let person still see the infomation they want. Just it will take longer.
The above is predicated on having long term samples to analyze. But if they can identify your machine over a long time to gather samples, then they don't need this technique in the first place. The whole point is to identify a machine which is moving around, connecting through multiple netwokrs or otherwise taking actions which, intentionally or not, work to obscure their identity.
The one use that they mentioned where this might not apply was identifying the number of machines behind a NAT connection, but that should be trivially defeated by having the NAT machine re-timestamp each packet. All connections would show the timeskew of the NAT server.
There are, of course, other cases where it might come in handy. For example, you could likely show that a laptop that a user caries from home to work and back on the daily basis is the same machine, even though it has different IPs in the two locations. But this is a much narrower use. A criminal who connects via wireless at various Starbucks Cafe's for short periods of time probably won't leave enough of a trail for this technique to work if he's taking precautions against it like adding random offsets to his time.
Is this the same timeskew that the Kerberos protocol measures, which is simply a measurement of the difference in the setting of the client clock as compared to the server clock? If so, isn't this defeated by simply changing the system time? A cron job to run an NTP update once an hour and viola, this technique is useless. Or, since we're talking about the TCP timestamp, a simple mod to the TCP/IP stack that alters the timestamp by some tiny, random amount. And, as you pointed out, it seems it would be trivial for a firewall or NAT device to subvert the technique by simply rewriting the TCP timestamp.
We're talking about TCO - Total Cost of Ownership. It takes time and effort to create an install and then mirror it to a hundred systems. The business pays for that time and effort. Even if it's an in house tech doing the job, at the very least his salary for the time spent doing the install should be factored into the cost.
And it's hardly a win for Linux to say that Linux is not more expensive than Windows. If we can't show a cost savings for Linux, it's a win for Redmond.
I'm assuming you're trolling but for those who may not recognize the fallacy in your comparison, I'll point it out.
Kazaa says "Trust me. My software is clean. Please install it on your computer." I say "Ha! Prove that your software is clean and then maybe I'll think about installing it to my machine. If you're clean, yous shouldn't have anything to hide by showing me your source code." Kazaa says, "No, I don't won't to show you my source code." I say "Cool. You keep your source code secret and I'll keep it off my machine."
Ashcroft says "We think you might be a terrorist. We want to come in and search through your hard drive for incriminating files." I say "I'm not a terrorist. I don't have to prove anything to you. You may not search my hard drive unless you have evidence and get a warrant." Ashcorft says "If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to hide. The Unpatriotic Act III says I don't need a warrant. So when my secret agent takes his knee out of your back and lets you get up, please stay out of our way. You might be able to get your hard drive back in a year or two when we're done with it. Have a nice day!"
Do you see just a tad bit of difference in those two scenarios?
I have read Walden but it's been a number of years. I must have been thinking of someone else but I don't recall who. Thomas Paine was largely self educated but I have a hard time seeing why I would have confused the two of them.
It may not be. Thoreau was, I believe, almost entirely self educated and he managed quite well. Abraham Lincoln taught himself law, and did quite well from a historical perspective, at least. (I have only a few technical college courses, and I know I'm better educated than many who hold four or six year degrees.)
But the advice in the article isn't centered on how to reach self actualization. It's talking to students who expect to get out and go to work in the business world. It's concerned with how to position yourself to succeed in finding and keeping a job. If you're a brilliant programmer, you may be able to succeed without any evidence of formal training. But if you're merely bright and competent, and you're competing with others who are bright and competent and degreed, you're at a severe disadvantage.
And if you don't care about succeeding in the business world, then don't bother replying. The advice wasn't meant for you, so attempting to refute it by changing the conditions on which it is predicated is a waste of all our times.
Slashdot Mirror
It was bad enough when your company was named after a duck instead of a penguin.
A duck? A drake is a male duck, but a mandrake is a poisonous plant that is supposed to have magical powers, probably because it's root looks like a human figure. Didn't you ever play King's Quest?
Is there something I'm missing or is this duck thing just confusion because of the word "drake" being in the name?
Chances are you could have the RFID reader built into the traffic light. And if I'm not mistaken, many cities already have their traffic light systems wired into computers. It allows them to monitor operation and to open up traffic lanes for emergency vehicles. It shouldn't be difficult to send the RFID data down the same path.
The difference between tracking when you make a purchase at a store and tracking every doorway that you walk through.
It works at a range sufficient to work in toll booths. What's to prevent the state from putting up a reader on the street corner? On every street corner? On every mile marker sign on the highway?
Why would they want to do that? Well, how about crime fighting, to start? If a house is broken into, they have an instant record of every car that's been into the neighborhood. How about speeding tickets? If you go from one mile marker to the next in less than 60 seconds, you're going more than 60 miles per hour.
But, even if it might help catch a few burglers, do you really want the state tracking every location where you drive your vehicle?
I'm sure there are some bad effects from CRT's, both in eyesight and other health areas. But whatever those ill effects are, I'd wager that they're not near as bad as the effects of sitting on your butt for 12 to 16 hours a day.
While I don't necessarily know that this is a good idea, the answer to your problem is relatively simple. You don't need to wipe the entire disk. All you need to do is wipe the areas that contain sensitive information. And we aren't talking about any and all sensitive data; just the files assoicated with the new Passport alternative. Keep a list of dirty clusters - clusters that have been used to store sensitive information. If they're no longer being used (say, because a defrag moved the files to a new location), they can be wiped while the system is otherwise idle. When you prep the system for resale, all you have to wipe is a few clusters. I can't see the sensitive info taking up that much room.
I'm not a TiVo users, so I'm not familiar with the details of the device. How are these ads delivered? Is it through a TV channel, through an IP connection or some other way? If it's IP, seems like a simple firewall tweak would fix the problem. If it's some other method, it might be more difficult to install a filter but it shouldn't be impossible.
If you really want to understand regexes, get Jeffrey E. E. Friedl's "Mastering Regular Expressions" from O'Reilly. It's much deeper than the casaul reader will ever need, but if you get through it you will certainly know how regexes work from both a user perspective and from a regex engine perspective.
It was used a lot later than the '70s. I joined the Navy in 1985 and I received a number of innoculations using these. I can't say for certain but organic ram suggests it continued until the mid '90s.
They weren't any less painful than a needle, but they were much quicker and they were foolproof. Literally anybody could use one. You just put it against the arm and pull the trigger.
I believe they were discontinued because of safety reasons. I believe they found out that there was a possibility of microdrops of blood being blasted back out of the skin, and then injected into the next person.
Uh, how about one of the biggest drivers of broadband service? You know, games? If Evercrack or UT starts getting laggy, you're going to have a lot of pissed off customers.
Just to refine what you said a bit for any lurkers who may not be familiar with AD, AD is segmented by domains. All domains in a forest share a common schema, but not a common LDAP database. (There's a second database, called the Global Catalog, that IS common to and replicated across all domains.) If you do have an area that is connected by a low-speed connection, you can minimize replication traffic by giving it its own domain. Additionally, you can establish site links and designate bridgehead servers between sites. Within a site, all domain controllers replicate with each other, but all replication between sites is done via the bridgehead server. You can configure when the bridgeheads replicate. For example, you might restrict replication to night hours when the LAN sees less use and has more free bandwidth.
So there is justice to what you say - AD is a bit of a bandwidth hog compared to other versions of LDAP. But there are tools and configuration options that will allow you to manage and control replication traffic.
I'll probably get crucified for this, but the Microsoft Press books on Active Directory actually get this right. It's specificially focused on Active Directory, of course, but there's a lot of it that is applicable to any form of LDAP. MS recommends that you configure your sites (essentially, units of replication) based upon geography and you configure your LDAP based upon the IT organization. Factors to take into account include administration responsibilities and security concerns. Sometimes, this coincides with geography. If you have local admins at each location, it might make sense to put users and computers at each location in a seperate OU. You can then delegate full admin control of the OU to the admins at that location. On the other hand, in a different structure it might make sense to divide your OUs up by departments, with, for example, everybody in Sales in one OU, regardless of which location they work.
It would be interesting to know how many times the following words (all taken from Gene Wolfe) appear:
n e
tribadist
algophile
epopt
lambrequin
pavoni
That barely screatches the surface.
LOL. Indeed. The original Chronicles. I finished The Runes of the Earth not too long ago, which inspired me to go back and reread the First and Second Chronicles again. It had been some seven or eight years since I'd read them. I'm nearly finished with The Power that Preserves.
I looked up "roynish" when I originally read the series but couldn't remember what it meant. For some reason, I kept thinking "foxlike," but that wasn't it.
If you read much Donaldson or Gene Wolfe, it helps to have either an Unabridged Dictionary or a 'Net connection handy.
It might be a cleaner interface but it doesn't seem to be near as comprehensive. For example, I looked up the word "roynish" earlier today. Google drew a blank. Dictionary.com had it. This isn't the first time this has happened, although I don't recall the other words off the top of my head.
While what you say is correct, I fail to see how it in any way contradicts the post to which you replied. Certainly, there are lots of different pricing models you could implement. Which would earn you more - $.05 per song or $5.00 per month for up to 100 songs? How about $.10 per song for the first 20 songs, then $.05 per song for the rest of the month? And of course that's just a couple of examples that barely scratch the surface. But the law of supply and demand does underlie all of those different scenarios. It isn't as simple as doubling the price and doubling the profit.
119 other individuals figured they too should follow the directions to hack in and learn the results
Did they? "Hack" in, that is? The original post describing how to access the information was deleted, and the article doesn't say what was involved. If getting to your personal results required firing up Metasploit, then I'd agree with you. They deserve to lose their acceptance and any other punishment that comes their way.
But if the "hack" was something similar to typing "http://www.harvard.com/results?first+last" into a browser and entering your password when asked, then I strongly disagree. I have a hard time seeing where such an act is so unethical or deceptive as to deserve to lose acceptance. It's the difference between stealing $50 from someone's wallet and finding it laying on the ground and not turning it in to Lost and Found.
Well, that was my question. The only place I've seen clockskew used is in the Kerberos protocol, and there it measures the amount of time that the client clock differs from the server clock. If that's not what they're talking about, then what precisely are they measuring? The amount of drift - that is, how fast the clock gains or loses time?
Has problems.
Does it?
Over time add and subtract will average let person still see the infomation they want. Just it will take longer.
The above is predicated on having long term samples to analyze. But if they can identify your machine over a long time to gather samples, then they don't need this technique in the first place. The whole point is to identify a machine which is moving around, connecting through multiple netwokrs or otherwise taking actions which, intentionally or not, work to obscure their identity.
The one use that they mentioned where this might not apply was identifying the number of machines behind a NAT connection, but that should be trivially defeated by having the NAT machine re-timestamp each packet. All connections would show the timeskew of the NAT server.
There are, of course, other cases where it might come in handy. For example, you could likely show that a laptop that a user caries from home to work and back on the daily basis is the same machine, even though it has different IPs in the two locations. But this is a much narrower use. A criminal who connects via wireless at various Starbucks Cafe's for short periods of time probably won't leave enough of a trail for this technique to work if he's taking precautions against it like adding random offsets to his time.
Is this the same timeskew that the Kerberos protocol measures, which is simply a measurement of the difference in the setting of the client clock as compared to the server clock? If so, isn't this defeated by simply changing the system time? A cron job to run an NTP update once an hour and viola, this technique is useless. Or, since we're talking about the TCP timestamp, a simple mod to the TCP/IP stack that alters the timestamp by some tiny, random amount. And, as you pointed out, it seems it would be trivial for a firewall or NAT device to subvert the technique by simply rewriting the TCP timestamp.
Some experts seem to disagree with you.
We're talking about TCO - Total Cost of Ownership. It takes time and effort to create an install and then mirror it to a hundred systems. The business pays for that time and effort. Even if it's an in house tech doing the job, at the very least his salary for the time spent doing the install should be factored into the cost.
And it's hardly a win for Linux to say that Linux is not more expensive than Windows. If we can't show a cost savings for Linux, it's a win for Redmond.
I'm assuming you're trolling but for those who may not recognize the fallacy in your comparison, I'll point it out.
Kazaa says "Trust me. My software is clean. Please install it on your computer." I say "Ha! Prove that your software is clean and then maybe I'll think about installing it to my machine. If you're clean, yous shouldn't have anything to hide by showing me your source code." Kazaa says, "No, I don't won't to show you my source code." I say "Cool. You keep your source code secret and I'll keep it off my machine."
Ashcroft says "We think you might be a terrorist. We want to come in and search through your hard drive for incriminating files." I say "I'm not a terrorist. I don't have to prove anything to you. You may not search my hard drive unless you have evidence and get a warrant." Ashcorft says "If you're not a terrorist, you have nothing to hide. The Unpatriotic Act III says I don't need a warrant. So when my secret agent takes his knee out of your back and lets you get up, please stay out of our way. You might be able to get your hard drive back in a year or two when we're done with it. Have a nice day!"
Do you see just a tad bit of difference in those two scenarios?
I have read Walden but it's been a number of years. I must have been thinking of someone else but I don't recall who. Thomas Paine was largely self educated but I have a hard time seeing why I would have confused the two of them.
It may not be. Thoreau was, I believe, almost entirely self educated and he managed quite well. Abraham Lincoln taught himself law, and did quite well from a historical perspective, at least. (I have only a few technical college courses, and I know I'm better educated than many who hold four or six year degrees.)
But the advice in the article isn't centered on how to reach self actualization. It's talking to students who expect to get out and go to work in the business world. It's concerned with how to position yourself to succeed in finding and keeping a job. If you're a brilliant programmer, you may be able to succeed without any evidence of formal training. But if you're merely bright and competent, and you're competing with others who are bright and competent and degreed, you're at a severe disadvantage.
And if you don't care about succeeding in the business world, then don't bother replying. The advice wasn't meant for you, so attempting to refute it by changing the conditions on which it is predicated is a waste of all our times.