You obviously know nothing about information control in war situation. Information (press and radio back then) was easy to control.
Find me a front page of a London newspaper showing panzers with a title such "we got a hell of a beating". Ruins of panzers are OK although, the shape would not be recognizable anyway. You can even show anything and tell people it is a destroyed panzer.
Learn warfare. It includes propaganda, disinformation, etc. If the other side uses it, you may have no choice to use it too especially if you were as military weak as Britain was compared to Germany.
I admire Churchill for the stab he had at it with relatively no budget until the US accepted to help him.
You can rest assured that Churchill and the following Prime Ministers made sure not to let that image contaminate British collective consciousness although. Not that many British soldiers saw panzers with their own eyes and they would be debriefed in order to make them sound insignificant to the ones who haven't.
Therefore, I doubt a panzer shape would have scared the British collective consciousness watching Dr. Who back then.
With all those kind of tricks, Churchill prevented Britain to surrender. Review all available accounts about this please.
Maybe now, in 2013, British citizens could be afraid of a panzer shape since the shape is available for anybody who wants to know. But then again...
Margin between being ex-term-inat-ed and keep going on is sometimes really thin. You have to grasp that concept well in order to continue efficiently in your journey.
I would have re-audited my system and made really sure the leak did not come from a different attack vector before pinpointing them.
Did you parse the headers of the spam to get more clues?
Most companies won't spend time because another network administrator tells them they have something wrong. Rule one is always to prove your facts almost without a doubt otherwise they may not listen to you or take action.
Try creating another account from a clean install to see if same happens.
Traditional Telco networks are ancient and wouldn't support it out of the box. Too much cost and the cost is to hard to resell to the end-user.
Callerid filtering, white/blackllisting, different behavior on the callee side depending on CID would have a better chance to succeed IMHO. Phone service providers can easily forward the costs to the customers.
Send suspicious calls to an IVR where the caller has to listen to a warning and punch keys to confirm, have this call automatically recorded for future reference etc. You can already do this for a dime with solutions like asterisk and Freeswicth.
See the parallel here with Spam? Spam assassin and mailscanner like solutions are easier to implement then having every email signed.
So, if there is just ONE bad egg that gives the callcenter-scumm an unrestricted PRI, the whole CallerID is compromised, as it factually is.
It's like asking to make UDP packages unspoofable, YOUR provider might be able and willing to filter YOUR link so you can only use your assigned ip, but what about the rest of the world...
PRI providers have to provide unrestricted PRIs to voip providers for call termination. Call might originate from US, be handled through VOIP by an Arab Emirates provider, routed through third party voip providers before reaching the termination provider that provide the PRI to terminate the call on PSTN networks.
The IP to PRI bridge is typically really to close to the switchboard and only sends local call through the PRI to avoid any old PSNT telco style long distance charge.
Big Picture: 1) Old PSTN telco style must provide PRIs to voip provider. 2) Voip providers use them only to terminate calls local to the switchboard the PRI is connected to. Cost is between.1 and 1 cent a minute. 3) Voip providers have deals together to use each other PRI without knowledge of the PRI provider.
It is hard in this context to know if the callerid is valid when it reaches the PRI.
Re:Review Ruby for the perl enthusiast please
on
Ruby 2.0.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
add shell scripting and it is all you need for "shredding text files" really.
C and shell scripting is good enough for me and it should be for any GNU project. I do not use half-way solutions such as Perl. I use Java when bash and C becomes too messy. The idea is to reduce your inventory to a strict minimum.
Also I am a very heavy user of tabs with 30 consoles split 10 in each of 3 tabbed windows, same for vnc remote desktop programs, etc.. I find it much more convenient to switch tabs then to lower/raise a window.
So tabs first, then multiple monitors when even switching tabs becomes to annoying. I hate to lower/raise windows (shortcut keys like avail in KDE help although)
Agreed but some tasks require you to have multiple references. Third and fourth ones further reduce the need for window switching. I have had up to six and I would have used a seventh one sometimes although it wouldn't have raised my efficiency much ; -)
I find that multiple monitors eliminate the need to switch window by keeping all of them always visible. How many windows can you have open at some point?
Yeap, keeping on Goggling about it to see if some technology breakthrough could cause to review my position, I found that some say it is even illegal in many states in other cases...
Another good point I found is that not only you may need to accelerate to avoid an accident but even if you need to brake, the car will behave weirdly because it is freewheeling.
Whenever a company supplied me with 'pivotable' monitors, I used to get strange looks in the office, even from supposed techies, about why one of my monitors was rotated pi/2.
I have worked in places where very many people used it so I guess you could now be the one giving strange looks at the ones giving you strange looks for that. Especially the "supposed techies".
I do not use it myself, but I might need to when I run out of 4:3 monitors.
Slashdot Mirror
skade88 writes "As I get older, ...
isn't it a little late to think about it at 88?
0.008 AU
AU is Sun to Earth distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit#Usage
You obviously know nothing about information control in war situation. Information (press and radio back then) was easy to control.
Find me a front page of a London newspaper showing panzers with a title such "we got a hell of a beating". Ruins of panzers are OK although, the shape would not be recognizable anyway. You can even show anything and tell people it is a destroyed panzer.
Learn warfare. It includes propaganda, disinformation, etc. If the other side uses it, you may have no choice to use it too especially if you were as military weak as Britain was compared to Germany.
I admire Churchill for the stab he had at it with relatively no budget until the US accepted to help him.
Thanks for the advice.
(take 2)
Slashfilter otherwise refuses it as:
"This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original..."
Thanks for the advice.
You can rest assured that Churchill and the following Prime Ministers made sure not to let that image contaminate British collective consciousness although. Not that many British soldiers saw panzers with their own eyes and they would be debriefed in order to make them sound insignificant to the ones who haven't.
Therefore, I doubt a panzer shape would have scared the British collective consciousness watching Dr. Who back then.
With all those kind of tricks, Churchill prevented Britain to surrender. Review all available accounts about this please.
Maybe now, in 2013, British citizens could be afraid of a panzer shape since the shape is available for anybody who wants to know. But then again...
We need a Slashpoll on this!
There was never any panzer on british soil. Buch of V2s although...
Come on, pay a little respect anyway. I tried to watch it a few times and my impressions match yours although.
Now, that he is dead, I might try to watch it again and maybe I will get the message. Who knows?
Margin between being ex-term-inat-ed and keep going on is sometimes really thin. You have to grasp that concept well in order to continue efficiently in your journey.
Hi, I run my own mail domain to.
I would have re-audited my system and made really sure the leak did not come from a different attack vector before pinpointing them.
Did you parse the headers of the spam to get more clues?
Most companies won't spend time because another network administrator tells them they have something wrong. Rule one is always to prove your facts almost without a doubt otherwise they may not listen to you or take action.
Try creating another account from a clean install to see if same happens.
I always look at my own network first.
A lot of calls originating from VOIP providers don't have ANI set to anything usefull.
http://wiki.docdroppers.org/index.php?title=VOIP_Caller_ID_/_ANI_Spoofing
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3490093&cid=42999977
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3490093&cid=42999769
Traditional Telco networks are ancient and wouldn't support it out of the box. Too much cost and the cost is to hard to resell to the end-user.
Callerid filtering, white/blackllisting, different behavior on the callee side depending on CID would have a better chance to succeed IMHO. Phone service providers can easily forward the costs to the customers.
Send suspicious calls to an IVR where the caller has to listen to a warning and punch keys to confirm, have this call automatically recorded for future reference etc. You can already do this for a dime with solutions like asterisk and Freeswicth.
See the parallel here with Spam? Spam assassin and mailscanner like solutions are easier to implement then having every email signed.
So, if there is just ONE bad egg that gives the callcenter-scumm an unrestricted PRI, the whole CallerID is compromised, as it factually is.
It's like asking to make UDP packages unspoofable, YOUR provider might be able and willing to filter YOUR link so you can only use your assigned ip, but what about the rest of the world...
PRI providers have to provide unrestricted PRIs to voip providers for call termination. Call might originate from US, be handled through VOIP by an Arab Emirates provider, routed through third party voip providers before reaching the termination provider that provide the PRI to terminate the call on PSTN networks.
The IP to PRI bridge is typically really to close to the switchboard and only sends local call through the PRI to avoid any old PSNT telco style long distance charge.
Big Picture: .1 and 1 cent a minute.
1) Old PSTN telco style must provide PRIs to voip provider.
2) Voip providers use them only to terminate calls local to the switchboard the PRI is connected to. Cost is between
3) Voip providers have deals together to use each other PRI without knowledge of the PRI provider.
It is hard in this context to know if the callerid is valid when it reaches the PRI.
add shell scripting and it is all you need for "shredding text files" really.
$ rvm
The program 'rvm' is currently not installed. You can install it by typing:
sudo apt-get install ruby-rvm
it doesn't seem like a package manager but more like ruby's own tool; Ruby Version Manager
http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/precise/man1/rvm.1.html
http://rvm.io/
Yeap, turbo pascal overlays on a 8086 with 640K.
Overlays basically allowed you to swap part of your running executable out manually from within your program.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10155003/how-did-turbo-pascal-overlays-work
This, exactly this.
C and shell scripting is good enough for me and it should be for any GNU project. I do not use half-way solutions such as Perl. I use Java when bash and C becomes too messy. The idea is to reduce your inventory to a strict minimum.
What's wrong with that? ;)
Also I am a very heavy user of tabs with 30 consoles split 10 in each of 3 tabbed windows, same for vnc remote desktop programs, etc.. I find it much more convenient to switch tabs then to lower/raise a window.
So tabs first, then multiple monitors when even switching tabs becomes to annoying. I hate to lower/raise windows (shortcut keys like avail in KDE help although)
Agreed but some tasks require you to have multiple references. Third and fourth ones further reduce the need for window switching. I have had up to six and I would have used a seventh one sometimes although it wouldn't have raised my efficiency much ; -)
I find that multiple monitors eliminate the need to switch window by keeping all of them always visible. How many windows can you have open at some point?
Easy, it is:
"my 25 character password."
Yeap, keeping on Goggling about it to see if some technology breakthrough could cause to review my position, I found that some say it is even illegal in many states in other cases...
Another good point I found is that not only you may need to accelerate to avoid an accident but even if you need to brake, the car will behave weirdly because it is freewheeling.
Whenever a company supplied me with 'pivotable' monitors, I used to get strange looks in the office, even from supposed techies, about why one of my monitors was rotated pi/2.
I have worked in places where very many people used it so I guess you could now be the one giving strange looks at the ones giving you strange looks for that. Especially the "supposed techies".
I do not use it myself, but I might need to when I run out of 4:3 monitors.
2 monitors are much better than 1 large monitor in my experience
I agree - one in portrait mode for a full-screen web browser for reading documents and the other in landscape mode for interactive work.
Agreeing here too, but why isn't "2" replaced by "multiples" ? ;-)
hehe...