Quite a bit of programming does suck. The problem however is that many of the large stations won't allow cable companies to do an a la carte system. Large and small MSOs are told "If you want Disney, you have to sell these five channels too." Then their friends say "Well, we won't let you show any of our channels unless you also show our friends channels" and so on and so forth. They even make demands on what channels they are placed next to and what they don't want to be around. Cable providers are raked over the coals every year by media owners and milked for every dime they make. I work for a medium size cable company myself, and every year our rates go up to show the same channels. Cable operators are getting squeezed out. You can't blame them for raising the bill when theirs keep going up too.
The idea isn't to hide the existance of the network, it is to hide the details. In this, hiding the SSID does the job just fine when coupled with other security measures.
That is a fairly baseless comparison considering you know the addresses of the homes surrounding you, whereas you have no clue what the SSID is. If you don't know what the SSID is, you can't spoof it. You might as well say that buying a new car is as useless as breathing to obtain oxygen. It makes no damn sense.
Your license doesn't allow you to attempt to hack a network, and when the police show up (because security will have called them already) and notify them of the felony you might be committing, the restraining order is all I'll need to have your license pulled:) People have done time for this in the past, and no cop is stupid enough to fall for the license BS.
I don't think its really a fair comparison anyway. The point isn't to ask if the mediums are better than each other, the question that is more appropriate is "Are wireless networks ready for full-time use in most networks". The answer honestly is yes, because they already exist in most networks successfully. Once you have a wireless network connected to your primary network, then you have no reason to not switch over completely as you obviously feel secure enough to have an AP already.
#1 - Pull up to parking lot.
#2 - Sniff advertised name of network
#3 - Put up your AP, set name to clone network's name
#4 - Record authentication attempts
#5...
#6 - Profit!
While many people may be attempting to "gimp" wired network security to "win" the argument, people are also doing the same to wireless. A secure wireless network is going to use the same layered approach that a wired network uses for security.
1. You will be looking for rogue transmitters and APs in the area of your network as a security measure, and be able to identify if someone is attempting to transmit from the parking lot. That is a good indicator that you need to send security out to a car.
2. You won't advertise your SSID on a secure wireless network, so this won't work. You'll be using a 512bit encryption scheme or better, as well as MAC filters.
3. This will be picked up by your regular network scans, and since you aren't broadcasting SSID data, you'll identify it fairly quickly. Also, you will probably have a lamb transmitter as bait for someone who knows enough to attack you but not enough to know its a trap.
4. You won't see people attempt to authenticate to you, because you won't have the right IDs and won't be able to decode the encrypted and signed data even if you somehow dupe a system to logging to you. Also, since you are sitting in the parking lot, you probably wont have as good a transmit level as the real transmitters, and properly tuned wifi cards don't hop APs easily.
5.... yeah, 1-4 are invalidated so... lets leave it...
6. You can't really profit with the fat amount of nothing you just got. Unless you kidnapped the security guard who wanted to know why the fuck you are sitting in his lot with a laptop and a wifi antenna sticking out your window.
While I do understand that WiFi isn't perfect, you have to understand that NO medium is ever perfect. For 90% of all companies out there a properly configured WiFi network is well within budget and the capability of their network admin. For the other 10% wired might the be only way to go (and I completely understand and agree with this!) But really, the majority of people that you have to worry about couldn't hack their way out of a paper bag, let alone into a secure wireless network. The most threat many of these companies will ever experience is going to come from employees internally anyway, in which case wired or wireless won't even matter.
Cytokine storms are "theorized" as the cause of death from the flu.. any flu... not just "this" flu. We aren't even talking about a fact, we are talking about Doctors saying "We have no evidence but this is our best guess."
fucking doomsaying bullshit is all this is. For fucks sake you people are quoting Wikipedia instead of the CDC; you can't even quote wiki for a damn highschool essay but you'll trust your life to that shit? I wonder if its really spreading in mexico because they DONT have as good an immune system as we do, they don't go to the doctor as often as we do, and they don't take medicine for every sniffle like we do. No, no that doesn't make any sense at all...
Sycraft, get a shovel, we can bury these people in vaults if we can just get wiki to tell them its healthy for them...
Bullshit. If this were true, the adults with healthy immune systems would be dying and not a 2 year old mexican child who would be more likely to die from normal flu just as much as a swine flu.
This flu isn't any worse than any other flu out there. In fact, if you look at historical statistics on this (from the CDC no less) there are far less people that have died from this in the past 30 years than any common flu in the past five. You aren't helping people by spouting "healthy people are more likely to die!" at all, you are just inciting panic.
Ignore the doomsayers, there is nothing to see here.
I believe it does count as involved, as people don't generally set a goal of committing career suicide by stepping on the presidents toes. People hated Bush, but politicians and judges still didn't tempt him until the end.
Combine this with his picks of Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general and you end up seeing how far "running against the grain" will get you if you happen to try something against the RIAA.
Brand new? I say the same thing every time and you don't get it each time. Fuck it, I'm tired of trying to get you to pull your head out of your ass. Go ahead and think they do this for some idealistic view of the world. Hell, go get a ship and help them. After all, the navy could use more target practice.
If they attacked waste barges and fishing vessels (there are fishing vessels to attack in the massive area they commit piracy in) they MIGHT attract the attention of the UN who would say "look, they are doing it to stop the dumping. This makes sense." and they MIGHT get help. However, using your issues as an excuse for being a warlord/waterlord is bullshit. Its a fact - Crime is illegal, and they know it. They do it for money, not for ideals. Do you think Somalis give a shit about the environment? Their own environment? Hello, they want MONEY, POWER, FOOD. They could switch to agriculture and get help but they don't want to do that, they want the quick dollar.
Get off your high horse, before a Somali takes it for ransom... I mean "aid".
Yep, he did read it, and I read it too. It doesn't change the fact that if this were the reason for it they would be attacking fishing vessels and waste dump barges instead of capturing valuable container ships and ransoming the crew and cargo for massive profit.
This is equivalent of saying "My neighbor keeps stealing my TV, so I kidnap the children of all the other neighbors EXCEPT his and sell them back so I can buy myself a yacht."
The only problem I see with his idea now is that it has been burdened by the weight of your useless carcass of a post.
Simply put, this is why marines exist. They were created, trained, and specialize in this field of battle. No regular force on earth is as skilled at ship to ship engagement and capture as a marine is.
While some say the rest of the world should respect Somalia's territory, they don't patrol it. They can't even control the land they own, let alone the 2,000 miles of coast line or 1.1 million square miles of AOP that the pirates work in. Now, around 20,000 ships travel through this area each year. break that down to seasonal and monthly repeaters and you get a very manageable number that you can populate with a squad of marines (two or three for large tankers and transports).
In 6 months of work I bet pirates decide that it isn't worth messing with a ship that has soldiers willing to not only kill you, but counter-board your ship and capture or kill anyone that DIDN'T attempt to board and proceed ot sink/capture the attacking vessel.
Oh my god, windows can be hacked! With physical access! THIS IS HUGE! WINDOWS SUCKS MICROFOSFT IS TEH DEVAL OOH NOES!!1!one
Linux... Mac OS, Windows, ANYTHING... can be hacked with physical access. Period. If you have the time and the access there is no security beyond encryption and even that can eventually be defeated. This seems like just another lame "bash microsoft" post. Yeah you hate them, sure we know it. Get over it. They didn't become one of the largest software providers on earth by use of magic and lolly pops (though it did take a few suckers here and there).
The worst part is that its a bunch of security researchers that blew time on this bullshit and then in the end said "but don't worry it doesn't matter." Then why the fuck did you bother with it? Congratulations for proving what the whole fucking security industry already knew captain obvious! Whats next, going to tell us that wireless routers have a physical switch vulnerability when the default password is used? Do us all a favor and fly out that window and save the world buddy.
If you read my post again, you'll notice it agrees with you and disagrees with the source posts earlier on. I tagged onto your post because it was the best one in the thread group to do so with. Relax, we didn't disagree at all...
He didn't rig the vote, he campaigned in a single episode. He basically said "I want my name on that station, vote for me." This is no different than any political vote or any other vote of any kind really. He won fair and square, and people are bitching about it because he isn't a serious guy? that is stupid.
It is simple: Colbert won doing what people do in every voting situation and won. If NASA wants to use their loophole and do whatever they want then that is well within their rights, but people need to stop bitching about how he did something wrong and realize this is how voting functions.
Opportunity cost? Last I checked that is called making a choice. If people are calling that a loss these days no wonder the economy went to crap. Think of all the imaginary money I lose by sleeping.
No, seriously, that is just fucking stupid. I'm not saying YOU are stupid, but at this point the argument is completely opinion based. Opportunity cost has got to be the dumbest idea since mark-to-market.
No, the government didn't "lose" anything. They didn't get more than they asked, but they didn't lose anything out of the deal. To lose something implies you had it in the first place. This isn't so.
Because it isn't a gift, its a price standard. Sure it spends the same, but it is all about how it is done. By not charging you more, you saved money (good on you) and I didn't charge you (no big deal, I still earned markup). In a bailout, the vendor (government) actually loses something in order for the buyer (Tesla obviously) to make the purchase in the first place. Now, if I had sold you the $10 meal, but it cost me $12 to make, I've done you a favor (at a loss to myself, a charity if you will). At that point you could call it a burger bailout. But the vendor in this case is still going to profit. (and in reality, they wouldn't get ANY profit if the loan was at normal APR because then Tesla would have no incentive to take it over a normal bank). I see this as being better for us because the interest will be paid back to the government (for once) instead of the bank (until we give it to someone as a bailout. Probably Mcdonalds at this point).
Slashdot Mirror
Quite a bit of programming does suck. The problem however is that many of the large stations won't allow cable companies to do an a la carte system. Large and small MSOs are told "If you want Disney, you have to sell these five channels too." Then their friends say "Well, we won't let you show any of our channels unless you also show our friends channels" and so on and so forth. They even make demands on what channels they are placed next to and what they don't want to be around. Cable providers are raked over the coals every year by media owners and milked for every dime they make. I work for a medium size cable company myself, and every year our rates go up to show the same channels. Cable operators are getting squeezed out. You can't blame them for raising the bill when theirs keep going up too.
The idea isn't to hide the existance of the network, it is to hide the details. In this, hiding the SSID does the job just fine when coupled with other security measures.
That is a fairly baseless comparison considering you know the addresses of the homes surrounding you, whereas you have no clue what the SSID is. If you don't know what the SSID is, you can't spoof it. You might as well say that buying a new car is as useless as breathing to obtain oxygen. It makes no damn sense.
Your license doesn't allow you to attempt to hack a network, and when the police show up (because security will have called them already) and notify them of the felony you might be committing, the restraining order is all I'll need to have your license pulled :) People have done time for this in the past, and no cop is stupid enough to fall for the license BS.
I don't think its really a fair comparison anyway. The point isn't to ask if the mediums are better than each other, the question that is more appropriate is "Are wireless networks ready for full-time use in most networks". The answer honestly is yes, because they already exist in most networks successfully. Once you have a wireless network connected to your primary network, then you have no reason to not switch over completely as you obviously feel secure enough to have an AP already.
The smart thing to do is just not broadcast your SSID in the first place.
Steps to break a wireless network:
#1 - Pull up to parking lot. #2 - Sniff advertised name of network #3 - Put up your AP, set name to clone network's name #4 - Record authentication attempts #5 ...
#6 - Profit!
While many people may be attempting to "gimp" wired network security to "win" the argument, people are also doing the same to wireless. A secure wireless network is going to use the same layered approach that a wired network uses for security.
... yeah, 1-4 are invalidated so ... lets leave it...
1. You will be looking for rogue transmitters and APs in the area of your network as a security measure, and be able to identify if someone is attempting to transmit from the parking lot. That is a good indicator that you need to send security out to a car.
2. You won't advertise your SSID on a secure wireless network, so this won't work. You'll be using a 512bit encryption scheme or better, as well as MAC filters.
3. This will be picked up by your regular network scans, and since you aren't broadcasting SSID data, you'll identify it fairly quickly. Also, you will probably have a lamb transmitter as bait for someone who knows enough to attack you but not enough to know its a trap.
4. You won't see people attempt to authenticate to you, because you won't have the right IDs and won't be able to decode the encrypted and signed data even if you somehow dupe a system to logging to you. Also, since you are sitting in the parking lot, you probably wont have as good a transmit level as the real transmitters, and properly tuned wifi cards don't hop APs easily.
5.
6. You can't really profit with the fat amount of nothing you just got. Unless you kidnapped the security guard who wanted to know why the fuck you are sitting in his lot with a laptop and a wifi antenna sticking out your window.
While I do understand that WiFi isn't perfect, you have to understand that NO medium is ever perfect. For 90% of all companies out there a properly configured WiFi network is well within budget and the capability of their network admin. For the other 10% wired might the be only way to go (and I completely understand and agree with this!) But really, the majority of people that you have to worry about couldn't hack their way out of a paper bag, let alone into a secure wireless network. The most threat many of these companies will ever experience is going to come from employees internally anyway, in which case wired or wireless won't even matter.
Cytokine storms are "theorized" as the cause of death from the flu.. any flu... not just "this" flu. We aren't even talking about a fact, we are talking about Doctors saying "We have no evidence but this is our best guess."
fucking doomsaying bullshit is all this is. For fucks sake you people are quoting Wikipedia instead of the CDC; you can't even quote wiki for a damn highschool essay but you'll trust your life to that shit? I wonder if its really spreading in mexico because they DONT have as good an immune system as we do, they don't go to the doctor as often as we do, and they don't take medicine for every sniffle like we do. No, no that doesn't make any sense at all...
Sycraft, get a shovel, we can bury these people in vaults if we can just get wiki to tell them its healthy for them...
Bullshit. If this were true, the adults with healthy immune systems would be dying and not a 2 year old mexican child who would be more likely to die from normal flu just as much as a swine flu.
This flu isn't any worse than any other flu out there. In fact, if you look at historical statistics on this (from the CDC no less) there are far less people that have died from this in the past 30 years than any common flu in the past five. You aren't helping people by spouting "healthy people are more likely to die!" at all, you are just inciting panic.
Ignore the doomsayers, there is nothing to see here.
I believe it does count as involved, as people don't generally set a goal of committing career suicide by stepping on the presidents toes. People hated Bush, but politicians and judges still didn't tempt him until the end.
Combine this with his picks of Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general and you end up seeing how far "running against the grain" will get you if you happen to try something against the RIAA.
Before anyone asks for citation, just go google RIAA and Obama. Actually, let me do it for you.
Link to Google Results
That assumes the RIAA would allow such a thing. Considering they own the President and his cabinet I highly doubt you can expect for this to happen.
Brand new? I say the same thing every time and you don't get it each time. Fuck it, I'm tired of trying to get you to pull your head out of your ass. Go ahead and think they do this for some idealistic view of the world. Hell, go get a ship and help them. After all, the navy could use more target practice.
I've been both poor and homeless, and didn't steal rob murder or ransom. The only people who turn to crime are criminals.
Actual results currently are: Get shot to death by SEAL team snipers. Yeah, great plan of action.
If they attacked waste barges and fishing vessels (there are fishing vessels to attack in the massive area they commit piracy in) they MIGHT attract the attention of the UN who would say "look, they are doing it to stop the dumping. This makes sense." and they MIGHT get help. However, using your issues as an excuse for being a warlord/waterlord is bullshit. Its a fact - Crime is illegal, and they know it. They do it for money, not for ideals. Do you think Somalis give a shit about the environment? Their own environment? Hello, they want MONEY, POWER, FOOD. They could switch to agriculture and get help but they don't want to do that, they want the quick dollar.
Get off your high horse, before a Somali takes it for ransom... I mean "aid".
Yep, he did read it, and I read it too. It doesn't change the fact that if this were the reason for it they would be attacking fishing vessels and waste dump barges instead of capturing valuable container ships and ransoming the crew and cargo for massive profit.
This is equivalent of saying "My neighbor keeps stealing my TV, so I kidnap the children of all the other neighbors EXCEPT his and sell them back so I can buy myself a yacht."
The only problem I see with his idea now is that it has been burdened by the weight of your useless carcass of a post.
Simply put, this is why marines exist. They were created, trained, and specialize in this field of battle. No regular force on earth is as skilled at ship to ship engagement and capture as a marine is.
While some say the rest of the world should respect Somalia's territory, they don't patrol it. They can't even control the land they own, let alone the 2,000 miles of coast line or 1.1 million square miles of AOP that the pirates work in. Now, around 20,000 ships travel through this area each year. break that down to seasonal and monthly repeaters and you get a very manageable number that you can populate with a squad of marines (two or three for large tankers and transports).
In 6 months of work I bet pirates decide that it isn't worth messing with a ship that has soldiers willing to not only kill you, but counter-board your ship and capture or kill anyone that DIDN'T attempt to board and proceed ot sink/capture the attacking vessel.
Oh my god, windows can be hacked! With physical access! THIS IS HUGE! WINDOWS SUCKS MICROFOSFT IS TEH DEVAL OOH NOES!!1!one
Linux... Mac OS, Windows, ANYTHING... can be hacked with physical access. Period. If you have the time and the access there is no security beyond encryption and even that can eventually be defeated. This seems like just another lame "bash microsoft" post. Yeah you hate them, sure we know it. Get over it. They didn't become one of the largest software providers on earth by use of magic and lolly pops (though it did take a few suckers here and there).
The worst part is that its a bunch of security researchers that blew time on this bullshit and then in the end said "but don't worry it doesn't matter." Then why the fuck did you bother with it? Congratulations for proving what the whole fucking security industry already knew captain obvious! Whats next, going to tell us that wireless routers have a physical switch vulnerability when the default password is used? Do us all a favor and fly out that window and save the world buddy.
If you read my post again, you'll notice it agrees with you and disagrees with the source posts earlier on. I tagged onto your post because it was the best one in the thread group to do so with. Relax, we didn't disagree at all...
He didn't rig the vote, he campaigned in a single episode. He basically said "I want my name on that station, vote for me." This is no different than any political vote or any other vote of any kind really. He won fair and square, and people are bitching about it because he isn't a serious guy? that is stupid.
It is simple: Colbert won doing what people do in every voting situation and won. If NASA wants to use their loophole and do whatever they want then that is well within their rights, but people need to stop bitching about how he did something wrong and realize this is how voting functions.
When did we start talking about OSX?
Opportunity cost? Last I checked that is called making a choice. If people are calling that a loss these days no wonder the economy went to crap. Think of all the imaginary money I lose by sleeping.
No, seriously, that is just fucking stupid. I'm not saying YOU are stupid, but at this point the argument is completely opinion based. Opportunity cost has got to be the dumbest idea since mark-to-market.
No, the government didn't "lose" anything. They didn't get more than they asked, but they didn't lose anything out of the deal. To lose something implies you had it in the first place. This isn't so.
Because it isn't a gift, its a price standard. Sure it spends the same, but it is all about how it is done. By not charging you more, you saved money (good on you) and I didn't charge you (no big deal, I still earned markup). In a bailout, the vendor (government) actually loses something in order for the buyer (Tesla obviously) to make the purchase in the first place. Now, if I had sold you the $10 meal, but it cost me $12 to make, I've done you a favor (at a loss to myself, a charity if you will). At that point you could call it a burger bailout. But the vendor in this case is still going to profit. (and in reality, they wouldn't get ANY profit if the loan was at normal APR because then Tesla would have no incentive to take it over a normal bank). I see this as being better for us because the interest will be paid back to the government (for once) instead of the bank (until we give it to someone as a bailout. Probably Mcdonalds at this point).