What I'm trying to get at is that a court only has jurisdiction over a commercial enterprise which is a legal entity in the same country.
If WoW has a UK division, tough for them. But if they do their shopping in Hong Kong and send directly to customers in the UK, there's not much the BPI could do about it.
On the other hand, they probably ship in bulk to the UK and then distribute locally to safe on mailing costs.
I'll have to try that, then. One thing I never figured out, is there a way to save profiles of servers you want to see through Gamespy, or should I be looking at a better way of listing games?
Essentially, I'd like a way to list both -A list of servers I want to check for games -All other servers Ideally from inside the game--I hate waiting for it to fire up every time I want to check some buddy finder prog, as for some reason, the game enjoys locking occasionally when I background it.
I swear, some of the most effective thinkers I've known have had a notebook and pen hanging from a string within reach of the pot.
I get some of my best ideas when I'm sitting on the can--maybe it's sort of the meditative aspect of just being in a sensory deprivation chamber, staring at tiles for a few minutes.
Me too. Most of the time I play on pub servers, I prefer to play with the 'losing' side. It's more fun to kill the overdogs.:-)
Truth that is. It's no fun, though, if you're playing against a group of 4-5 well-drilled team players who really cover each other. They're cool to watch sometimes, but can be utterly impossible to crack, especially on an assault maps such as Omaha or Market Garden (never understood why they have Americans as Allies on that map.) One or two clued players don't stand much of a chance against some well-oiled brute squad, and you can't always avoid them.
Regarding the games, it would be cool if someone ran a server that was sort of semi-public--having ~16 "clued" players, plus the smattering of outside people to make a "full" game would definitely be more fun than having all random idiots, who may or may not have an idea what they're doing.
Are you only talking about unmanaged ("server") certificates? Do your employees use personal certificates for authentication/signing/encryption/non-repudiation/ making toast/whatever?
As lots of posters have indicated, finding the ssl certificates is pretty easy.
Note that this only applies to individual's certificates, but what about keys? Not all keys are cert-based. Do you want to centrally manage employee or customer info via a PKI? Got a proper directory schema in place? Handling keys via tokens/got a token/card management system in place that'll hold up?
You should probably make sure you know the answers to those before starting anything.
Well, clan battles are also a way to avoid the children; however, the reason I try to stay away from clans is twofold; I can't really commit to fixed times for things like gaming, and I REALLY dislike it when a clan invades a public server (at least when they play on the same side)--I hate unbalanced teams, and 4-5 members of a good clan playing together are often unassailable for any random ragtag group of players (individual skill falls by the roadside if there's nobody to cover your back.)
TGBF looks very interesting, but all the games seem to be 8v8--I like BIG fights, which is why I bought the game to start out with. 16v16 minimum 8)
And man, how you find time (or maybe escape:) with 2 kids for games...I barely manage with a girlfriend!
This is good news. It lets me just blacklist everything purporting to come from an IPv6 address, instead of having to figure out which netblocks are registered in China.
Actually, I hate grenades--I think they're the worst damn thing in that particular game (at least the way they're implemented.) 'Nade spamming really ruins it for me sometimes, although it's kind of a guilty pleasure at times.
I have way more fun tossing expacks at people, to be honest. They fly so much more spectacularly. Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a sneaky bastard, but I love to put them where jeeps (or, in SW, bikes) pass by. Boing.
As for spotting snipers, the only ones that are hard to spot are the ones that are (a) very far away and (b) well hidden in the shadw (not giving a silhouette.) The former, as I said, can usually be avoided pretty easily if you just keep moving, or shoot from some degree of cover if you must stop, and the latter, well, just gotta keep your eyes open.
As kiddies are concerned, I don't mind them _too_ much--they taste great. You get to the point where you just leave games that are completely idiotic, and otherwise team up with clued peopele and get soemthing done.
I'll look at that page, but I've also been told that WWII online is pretty spiffy for good teamplay. To be honest, that's one of the main reasons I like BF--it's not really cutting edge technologically, but due to the nature of the weapons, it's a _bit_ slower than, say, Quake (and silly enough to keep me entertained.) That way, the twitchy kids don't go for it quite as much.
If you like CTF in Battlefield, I _highly_ recommend grabbing a copy of Secret Weapons and trying out Objective mode. It's absolutely hilarious (although there are precious few servers that support it.) I hope EA doesn't sideline that game too soon for something newer--the potential for superb in-context mods, like new weapons and campaigns, is just too high (yes, I'm a bit of a WWII enthusiast.)
What you should try at some point is sniping as engineer. You don't get near the scope range of the sniper (i.e. you can't spot people as blurs in hazy maps halfway across the battlefield as well) but that's never really been a problem for me, as precious few people can hit anything at that range anyway. You have 2.5 times the ammo, and with a bit of practice, as much accuracy.
I love going sniper hunting with a regular rifle--it really pisses off the kiddies. With a tiny bit more walking, you can usually position yourself well enough to even out the difference, and if you manage to roam deep, it's great fun to ambush enemy vehicles with mines and expacks at choke points where they don't expect an enemy, while you pick off their infantry from behind.
I've also found that I'm far more accurate with a rifle than shooting an assault rifle in single shots or short bursts; when I'm on a roll, I have no problem picking off people running laterally to me at fair distances, whereas I can't hit a barn door with an automatic weapon.
Plus, if you play Road to Rome, you get a bayonet, which is the ultimate humiliation for people you manage to get close to.
Don't forget Battlefield 1942--I consistently have a higher ratio of kills against snipers when playing engineer, with a single-shot unscoped rifle.
Of course, that's not saying most snipers there know what the hell they're doing--I've run across a few very good ones (that weren't bots). But most of them are just plain awful (d00d i can sit here and sh3wt from phar away and he'll neer see me! N00b!).
Most snipers I've seen don't have any clue about leading their targets, aiming for the head, patience, changing their position when it's obvious they're spotted, not giving the enemy a silhouette (sniping from downslopers or in front of shadowy things), waiting for a good shot instead of just potting away, etc etc etc.
The good sniper can be a definite pest, but I've only seen one have near the same effect on a round as a good grunt--and this one was a bot (sniping across the map while jumping or moving crouched, near 100% hit to kill rate from massive distances.)
Actually, the main problem I've always had with Star Trek wasn't with the science. Really not. Especially after reading multiple interviews with Gene Roddenberry and other production staff, asserting how much time they spent trying to at least make the technical aspects of the series plausible (if not possible.)
No, the reason I never really liked Star Trek was that other Sci-Fi series and movies were gritty, dirty. Have you ever been on a warship or in an inner city? There are definite parallels in Aliens, or in Blade Runner. Even Star Wars ships had a cramped, tech-heavy quality that works for me.
On the other hand, Star Trek always gave me this impression of a bunch of people in polyester lounge suits driving a jet-propelled living room around the galaxy. Yak yak yak, invent massively powerful weapons, yet drive massive battleships up to each other and shoot a few laser bolts, then yak some more, you get the idea.
Holodecks on a warship? Give me a break--the gunnery officers would be beating each other up constantly over whose turn it was in the orgasmatron. All human greed and negative traits eliminated, humanity evolved past the use of money? Right. Superduper smart computers who can be hacked by a 10 year old but who can't figure out that evil Kirk is hiding in the spare parts room? Yeah right.
The only good Star Trek episodes were the ones where the characters were presented with real individual challenges (then Kirk comes up with some really cool solution and bangs the hot green alien chick) or where they go tear-assing around the galaxy blowing up hapless Klingons (without random goop on their foreheads, thank you.)
I guess I'm griping about technicalities, but I think I would have liked ST a lot better if it had been grittier, dirtier and darker overall. As it stands, it felt more like Captain Leisure Suit Larry and his crew of touchy-feely telepath lounge lizards than real space opera.
Does it actually cause a server (never played with Mail.app) to bounce the message with a proper 550 or similar, or just reply with a form?
There was some discussion on/. a while ago about doing spam filtering during the transaction phase on the MTA, allowing you to really bounce messages (at the risk of false positives.)
I do this quite often--it's part of my job. First off, consider that at a dinner party, you may not even want to talk too much shop, but rather set the ground work for some other time. More on that later.
This isn't really IT-specific, but when dealing with management, always remember two words: Risk and Cost.
These people are most likely not technical--they've been trained by generations of PWC and McKinsey consultants to expect to be able to boil the most complex problems down to several binary points on a powerpoint slide. Don't be afraid to explain, but be prepared to wade into dangerous water the moment you start with "yes, but..."
Speak clearly, succinctly, never hem and haw, never be afraid to say "I don't know but I'll find out", never bullshit. For right or wrong, you're most likely on their turf (when they're on mine and yours, they tend to get googley-eyed--try taking your boss' boss into a big server room sometime for some fun) and they make the rules.
Don't waste time, don't beat around the bush, be open, make eye contact, don't fidget, don't talk to the whiteboard, don't read off your points, yada yada. Nothing goes over preparation. Use positive words (can, will, etc.)
For non-technical management, technical problems are just another business task. There's nothing special about it--they may even be slightly intimidated by the topic, and thus pay closer attention to individual words of yours (so be prepared to carefully formulate your sentences to not leave any openings.) Ask if there are questions from time to time.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with being friendly. Think about it this way--who would you rather have describe an accounting problem to you, your boss' boss' boss or your beer-drinking gamer buddy Bert with a finance degree? Same thing applies. Make friends--it's amazing how few technical people understand the importance of getting to know people, socializing, whatnot.
I know these are all general things, but they've helped me tremendously.
This port blocking is not government mandated. It's the choice of the individual ISP.
Absolutely. As is DRM or having a firewall installed, or running MS-signed drivers. What I was trying to get across was the scary thought that, if enough policy wonks decide that security can be solved by heavy-handed mandatory technical measures, such as port blocking, it may no longer be voluntary.
Just mandate that spammers be shot on sight. Saves paper and time, and our representatives can get back to figuring out how to prosecute 13 year old filesharers.
Fair points, but tell me, where do you draw the line between, for example, legislation mandating that commercial operating systems have DRM implemented to prevent non-NSA-vetted software running (silly example I know, but bear with me) and legislation mandating that providers block certain ports? They're both shitty technical "solutions" to a widespread security problem. There's no topic switch--if Congress decides that there's a chance of armageddon occurring because of security holes and requires that measures be taken to address that possibility, what do you do as an ISP? As an end user? As a software manufacturer?
What you do on your private network is your business beyond, for example, exercising due care (say, as a bank.) The situation is a bit different for an ISP, who is a carrier. Currently there is no or little legislation in that area--it's purely based on the initiative of individual manufacturers, users and ISPs. If the author's bleak scenarios come to pass, that may change pretty quickly. There's your connect.
As for grannies vs. clued users, yes. Correct. But if we do get to the point of mandating locking down of IT infrastructure, don't delude yourself into thinking that someone will make any sort of differentiation between the Morloks and the Eloi on the Internet. You try convincing some bureaucrat that you know what you're doing and should be exempt.
Slashdot Mirror
Big explosion in
punctuation factory
Result? Perl. Good Luck...
open bracket, bang
colon backslash asterisk
oops, forgot a quote
Finally, finished!
Undefined variable.
Camel book flies far.
How do I do this?
Answer: "Easy, just use perl"
Programmer gets punched.
That's not my point.
What I'm trying to get at is that a court only has jurisdiction over a commercial enterprise which is a legal entity in the same country.
If WoW has a UK division, tough for them. But if they do their shopping in Hong Kong and send directly to customers in the UK, there's not much the BPI could do about it.
On the other hand, they probably ship in bulk to the UK and then distribute locally to safe on mailing costs.
Err...what on god's green earth do British courts have to say about a Hong Kong enterprise?
I'll have to try that, then. One thing I never figured out, is there a way to save profiles of servers you want to see through Gamespy, or should I be looking at a better way of listing games?
Essentially, I'd like a way to list both
-A list of servers I want to check for games
-All other servers
Ideally from inside the game--I hate waiting for it to fire up every time I want to check some buddy finder prog, as for some reason, the game enjoys locking occasionally when I background it.
...to put it in their own words, the bolt could "go across the room, bounce off of various objects, and become swiftly lodged into our soft brains".
Sure, but they'd have a perfect photo of it!
I swear, some of the most effective thinkers I've known have had a notebook and pen hanging from a string within reach of the pot.
I get some of my best ideas when I'm sitting on the can--maybe it's sort of the meditative aspect of just being in a sensory deprivation chamber, staring at tiles for a few minutes.
Me too. Most of the time I play on pub servers, I prefer to play with the 'losing' side. It's more fun to kill the overdogs.
Truth that is. It's no fun, though, if you're playing against a group of 4-5 well-drilled team players who really cover each other. They're cool to watch sometimes, but can be utterly impossible to crack, especially on an assault maps such as Omaha or Market Garden (never understood why they have Americans as Allies on that map.) One or two clued players don't stand much of a chance against some well-oiled brute squad, and you can't always avoid them.
Regarding the games, it would be cool if someone ran a server that was sort of semi-public--having ~16 "clued" players, plus the smattering of outside people to make a "full" game would definitely be more fun than having all random idiots, who may or may not have an idea what they're doing.
Damn, beat me to it.
"This is Wolf Blitzer reporting from the 1st Cavalry Divi...Oh the humanity!"
Are you only talking about unmanaged ("server") certificates? Do your employees use personal certificates for authentication/signing/encryption/non-repudiation/ making toast/whatever?
As lots of posters have indicated, finding the ssl certificates is pretty easy.
Note that this only applies to individual's certificates, but what about keys? Not all keys are cert-based. Do you want to centrally manage employee or customer info via a PKI? Got a proper directory schema in place? Handling keys via tokens/got a token/card management system in place that'll hold up?
You should probably make sure you know the answers to those before starting anything.
Well, clan battles are also a way to avoid the children; however, the reason I try to stay away from clans is twofold; I can't really commit to fixed times for things like gaming, and I REALLY dislike it when a clan invades a public server (at least when they play on the same side)--I hate unbalanced teams, and 4-5 members of a good clan playing together are often unassailable for any random ragtag group of players (individual skill falls by the roadside if there's nobody to cover your back.)
TGBF looks very interesting, but all the games seem to be 8v8--I like BIG fights, which is why I bought the game to start out with. 16v16 minimum 8)
And man, how you find time (or maybe escape
As for 'Nam, yeah, I saw that--too bad, really.
This is good news. It lets me just blacklist everything purporting to come from an IPv6 address, instead of having to figure out which netblocks are registered in China.
Yeah, but if my ISP explodes, I won't get half a ton of Cablecom telco equipment dropping through my skylight from 12 miles up.
What's the terminal velocity of a wireless router anyway?
Actually, I hate grenades--I think they're the worst damn thing in that particular game (at least the way they're implemented.) 'Nade spamming really ruins it for me sometimes, although it's kind of a guilty pleasure at times.
I have way more fun tossing expacks at people, to be honest. They fly so much more spectacularly. Maybe it's because I'm a bit of a sneaky bastard, but I love to put them where jeeps (or, in SW, bikes) pass by. Boing.
As for spotting snipers, the only ones that are hard to spot are the ones that are (a) very far away and (b) well hidden in the shadw (not giving a silhouette.) The former, as I said, can usually be avoided pretty easily if you just keep moving, or shoot from some degree of cover if you must stop, and the latter, well, just gotta keep your eyes open.
As kiddies are concerned, I don't mind them _too_ much--they taste great. You get to the point where you just leave games that are completely idiotic, and otherwise team up with clued peopele and get soemthing done.
I'll look at that page, but I've also been told that WWII online is pretty spiffy for good teamplay. To be honest, that's one of the main reasons I like BF--it's not really cutting edge technologically, but due to the nature of the weapons, it's a _bit_ slower than, say, Quake (and silly enough to keep me entertained.) That way, the twitchy kids don't go for it quite as much.
If you like CTF in Battlefield, I _highly_ recommend grabbing a copy of Secret Weapons and trying out Objective mode. It's absolutely hilarious (although there are precious few servers that support it.) I hope EA doesn't sideline that game too soon for something newer--the potential for superb in-context mods, like new weapons and campaigns, is just too high (yes, I'm a bit of a WWII enthusiast.)
What you should try at some point is sniping as engineer. You don't get near the scope range of the sniper (i.e. you can't spot people as blurs in hazy maps halfway across the battlefield as well) but that's never really been a problem for me, as precious few people can hit anything at that range anyway. You have 2.5 times the ammo, and with a bit of practice, as much accuracy.
I love going sniper hunting with a regular rifle--it really pisses off the kiddies. With a tiny bit more walking, you can usually position yourself well enough to even out the difference, and if you manage to roam deep, it's great fun to ambush enemy vehicles with mines and expacks at choke points where they don't expect an enemy, while you pick off their infantry from behind.
I've also found that I'm far more accurate with a rifle than shooting an assault rifle in single shots or short bursts; when I'm on a roll, I have no problem picking off people running laterally to me at fair distances, whereas I can't hit a barn door with an automatic weapon.
Plus, if you play Road to Rome, you get a bayonet, which is the ultimate humiliation for people you manage to get close to.
You forgot
....
4)
5) Profit!
*ducks*
Don't forget Battlefield 1942--I consistently have a higher ratio of kills against snipers when playing engineer, with a single-shot unscoped rifle.
Of course, that's not saying most snipers there know what the hell they're doing--I've run across a few very good ones (that weren't bots). But most of them are just plain awful (d00d i can sit here and sh3wt from phar away and he'll neer see me! N00b!).
Most snipers I've seen don't have any clue about leading their targets, aiming for the head, patience, changing their position when it's obvious they're spotted, not giving the enemy a silhouette (sniping from downslopers or in front of shadowy things), waiting for a good shot instead of just potting away, etc etc etc.
The good sniper can be a definite pest, but I've only seen one have near the same effect on a round as a good grunt--and this one was a bot (sniping across the map while jumping or moving crouched, near 100% hit to kill rate from massive distances.)
Actually, the main problem I've always had with Star Trek wasn't with the science. Really not. Especially after reading multiple interviews with Gene Roddenberry and other production staff, asserting how much time they spent trying to at least make the technical aspects of the series plausible (if not possible.)
No, the reason I never really liked Star Trek was that other Sci-Fi series and movies were gritty, dirty. Have you ever been on a warship or in an inner city? There are definite parallels in Aliens, or in Blade Runner. Even Star Wars ships had a cramped, tech-heavy quality that works for me.
On the other hand, Star Trek always gave me this impression of a bunch of people in polyester lounge suits driving a jet-propelled living room around the galaxy. Yak yak yak, invent massively powerful weapons, yet drive massive battleships up to each other and shoot a few laser bolts, then yak some more, you get the idea.
Holodecks on a warship? Give me a break--the gunnery officers would be beating each other up constantly over whose turn it was in the orgasmatron. All human greed and negative traits eliminated, humanity evolved past the use of money? Right. Superduper smart computers who can be hacked by a 10 year old but who can't figure out that evil Kirk is hiding in the spare parts room? Yeah right.
The only good Star Trek episodes were the ones where the characters were presented with real individual challenges (then Kirk comes up with some really cool solution and bangs the hot green alien chick) or where they go tear-assing around the galaxy blowing up hapless Klingons (without random goop on their foreheads, thank you.)
I guess I'm griping about technicalities, but I think I would have liked ST a lot better if it had been grittier, dirtier and darker overall. As it stands, it felt more like Captain Leisure Suit Larry and his crew of touchy-feely telepath lounge lizards than real space opera.
Does it actually cause a server (never played with Mail.app) to bounce the message with a proper 550 or similar, or just reply with a form?
/. a while ago about doing spam filtering during the transaction phase on the MTA, allowing you to really bounce messages (at the risk of false positives.)
There was some discussion on
I do this quite often--it's part of my job. First off, consider that at a dinner party, you may not even want to talk too much shop, but rather set the ground work for some other time. More on that later.
This isn't really IT-specific, but when dealing with management, always remember two words: Risk and Cost.
These people are most likely not technical--they've been trained by generations of PWC and McKinsey consultants to expect to be able to boil the most complex problems down to several binary points on a powerpoint slide. Don't be afraid to explain, but be prepared to wade into dangerous water the moment you start with "yes, but..."
Speak clearly, succinctly, never hem and haw, never be afraid to say "I don't know but I'll find out", never bullshit. For right or wrong, you're most likely on their turf (when they're on mine and yours, they tend to get googley-eyed--try taking your boss' boss into a big server room sometime for some fun) and they make the rules.
Don't waste time, don't beat around the bush, be open, make eye contact, don't fidget, don't talk to the whiteboard, don't read off your points, yada yada. Nothing goes over preparation. Use positive words (can, will, etc.)
For non-technical management, technical problems are just another business task. There's nothing special about it--they may even be slightly intimidated by the topic, and thus pay closer attention to individual words of yours (so be prepared to carefully formulate your sentences to not leave any openings.) Ask if there are questions from time to time.
Likewise, there is nothing wrong with being friendly. Think about it this way--who would you rather have describe an accounting problem to you, your boss' boss' boss or your beer-drinking gamer buddy Bert with a finance degree? Same thing applies. Make friends--it's amazing how few technical people understand the importance of getting to know people, socializing, whatnot.
I know these are all general things, but they've helped me tremendously.
Absolutely. As is DRM or having a firewall installed, or running MS-signed drivers. What I was trying to get across was the scary thought that, if enough policy wonks decide that security can be solved by heavy-handed mandatory technical measures, such as port blocking, it may no longer be voluntary.
That's what scares the crap out of me.
(slurred) Aye Fergus, ye have te plug it in thish hole here and we'll have bore..board..loadsh of naked lasses at oor finnertipsh...
FERGUS YE MUPPET THASH' THE WRONG HO.. *ZOT* *sizzle*
Ah buggrit, we'll jush' tell 'er Yanksh itsh fasht innernet...pash me the drambuie.
Just mandate that spammers be shot on sight. Saves paper and time, and our representatives can get back to figuring out how to prosecute 13 year old filesharers.
Fair points, but tell me, where do you draw the line between, for example, legislation mandating that commercial operating systems have DRM implemented to prevent non-NSA-vetted software running (silly example I know, but bear with me) and legislation mandating that providers block certain ports? They're both shitty technical "solutions" to a widespread security problem. There's no topic switch--if Congress decides that there's a chance of armageddon occurring because of security holes and requires that measures be taken to address that possibility, what do you do as an ISP? As an end user? As a software manufacturer?
What you do on your private network is your business beyond, for example, exercising due care (say, as a bank.) The situation is a bit different for an ISP, who is a carrier. Currently there is no or little legislation in that area--it's purely based on the initiative of individual manufacturers, users and ISPs. If the author's bleak scenarios come to pass, that may change pretty quickly. There's your connect.
As for grannies vs. clued users, yes. Correct. But if we do get to the point of mandating locking down of IT infrastructure, don't delude yourself into thinking that someone will make any sort of differentiation between the Morloks and the Eloi on the Internet. You try convincing some bureaucrat that you know what you're doing and should be exempt.
Err, f*** me, should have read 25, 80, 110, 143 and 443.
You can stop throwing tomatoes now.
http://www.swinog.ch.
Feel free to browse the mailing list archives.
And no, port numbers don't cause insecurity. That's sort of part of my point (which you conveniently missed.)