Well, let me tell you from experience you want a leather one, not nylon. Those things chafe like you would not believe. Also, dual "device" holsters are not really practical... they're unwieldy, don't do the job, and often the device pops out which can be really frustrating.
Now, a lot of people here have mentioned size. This is an important consideration -- If you're going for a 10 or 12 inch device, you may find that the holster sags, and it can be very hard to get the device in. Something of a more manageable size, say 5 to 7 inches, gets the job done just as well, it's more practical, and it won't feel nearly as awkward walking around in public with.
Why not say fuck you to the NIMBYs? Aren't there fewer of them than all the rest of us?
I don't know: Do you want to live next to the national repository for all kinds of highly radioactive waste, knowing it's an ideal terrorist and military target because, if it were ever damaged and the nuclear material released, it would create a cloud of hazardous radioactive shit raining down over a wide area, making it arguably worse than if they'd just dropped a nuke on your head?
Of course not. It's like how pro-lifers are only one unplanned pregnancy away from being pro-choice. Situational politics. That said, the whole point of the government is to work for the greater good -- which sometimes means causing harm to a small number for the benefit of a large number. In this case though, the harm is a statistical abstraction, rather than a concrete example... though the logic is the same in both cases.
They wasted $10 on copper in a larger moon landing project. The only rational reading of your post is that you think all governmental space launches are a waste of money, and we should never have gone to the moon or built a shuttle.
Hmm... launching something into space travelling at about 7 miles per second, knowing it will disperse over a wide area, along an equitorial orbit, and made of thin, long bolts of metal... at the same time we're launching men into space. Yeah, I can't see how anyone might find the "only rational reading" of my concern is that it's a waste of money, instead of being not only a waste of money, but also a hazard to lives and property.
you think all governmental space launches are a waste of money, and we should never have gone to the moon or built a shuttle.
"Hello? Strawman Delivers? Yes, I'd like to order a Large special with extra hyperbole and a side of melodrama. Yes. Can I also get dessert -- one small slice of humble pie? Cool. I also have a coupon."
Ummm no. The problem here began because girlintraining just got caught not knowing what he was talking about, again, while acting like an expert about a topic, again.
First, not a dude. Second; Men are competitive, and they express that through abuse, derogatory comments, etc., because that's how you "win" in a competition. Now I don't assume that's sexist, in fact, I know it's precisely because they aren't being sexist that this behavior happens. I don't expect men to act less like assholes just because there's a woman around; much to the chagrin of my feminist peers. I just wanted that up there because you, like so many other people, either assume I'm a dude, or a dude pretending to be a chick, or whatever other politically-incorrect way of describing me you can come up with, including intentionally calling me by the wrong pronouns. I get it... you feel threatened, so you attack my gender, and it's not because you're sexist, but because you're an asshole. Now, with that sorted...
girlintraiing then just did a complete about-face attempting to salvage the situation, proving as well that honesty and accuracy on the tin isnt as important to him as appearances.
Actually, I could give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about appearances. It's one of the reasons moderators alternate between praise and frothing at the mouth with me; I don't take sides, I don't sugar coat, and I try to beat my opponent with facts, not name-calling or labelling (invariably the lead-on to a strawman). I don't care whether I'm +5 or -99; What I care about is trying to be as accurate as I can, as often as I can. Does that mean I don't trip over pedantic and nuanced differences? Of course not! Does it mean I don't occasionally mix up my facts, reverse the names, or add an extra word here or there that completely changes the meaning of what I was trying to say? Nope. I'm human, this is a forum not an academic paper, and I fuck up. And I'm big enough to admit when I do, if I do.
The common theme between the two posts is appearances, accuracy be damned.
Sooo... you're upset that my follow-up post is related to the original, meant to clarify what was apparently unclear to everyone else, and claim that this attempt to be more accurate... is evidence that I don't care about accuracy?
Huh. Okay. Have you considered a career in politics?
here are a lot of IT admins not taking security seriously and if you couple that with inexperienced home admins the threat is real.
Hi. I've been doing network administration for close to a decade. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't cure stupid. And being smart and experience is no bar from fucking up either. I've done it. You've done it. The guy replying to this comment insisting he wouldn't, yup -- he's done it too. You don't get good network security on your own... it's a team effort. The more eyeballs you have, the less of a chance of screwing up. But it's never zero. There's never perfect security; If it was achievable, I'd be out of a job.
So let's just put to bed now the notion that "tons of rogue apps and sites infected" wouldn't happen if the people on the other end were intelligent and experienced. It'll happen to anyone you put on the other side of that router. Anyone.
Now, let's talk about servers: On the internet, there's no such thing. Oh, you know and I know what a server is. But defining a server at the network level is like defining porn: You know it when you see it. But it's an arbitrary distinction. As far as the network is concerned, it's just a network address... like all the other network addresses. Its only job is to get the packets from the source to the destination. At the network level (ie, the internet), there's no such thing as a server. Now, here's the rub; Whatever arbitrary definition you come up with for what a server is, you're going to find an exception. A grey area. Bittorrent has no concept of a server, for example -- everyone is both a client and a server... or more accurately, a peer. Many protocols are like that.
From a practical standpoint, there is no way to define a server that won't, in some manner, ban a legitimate use situation by someone who isn't trying to "serve" anything. It's unenforceable anyway -- you're just a tunneled connection away from plausible deniability. Connect your server to the Tor network as a hidden service...
Ultimately, the only thing the ISP will be able to claim is that your upload:download ratio isn't like most of the others on their network. And this, right here, is the key to the argument. ISPs don't want people to have a lot of upstream capacity because they can't cache it, buffer it, or otherwise manipulate the data streams to avoid paying for bandwidth out to their border routers. Comcast, for example, intercepts windows update connections and re-routes them to local servers. They have hundreds of them. As far as the actual download of a patch goes, Microsoft never hears from your computer if you're a Comcast user.
Stuff like that is the reason for the fail whale language about "servers"; It means less profit. Network administration and security is separate -- it may be the excuse, but it's not the reason.
...and why are you giving the NRC and Obama bravo's? They are CLOSING Yucca mountain, not getting it completed and therefore usable.
Umm, maybe this is a bit of an obvious thing to say, but given that you're at a +5 informative and I've been modded troll, perhaps not obvious enough...
Why are they closing Yucca mountain?
Is it perhaps because all the money was witheld due to pressure from the NIMBYs, thus leaving closure the only option? The NRC pushed for years to get this operational and failed time and time again... because they couldn't ride roughshod over the courts. They tried. They failed. I admire that effort, though it failed.
Obama had no choice but to mothball it; It was even part of his 2008 election campaign -- the NIMBYs, led by their commander Senator Harry Reid, vigorously campaigned to kill it. They won. Before Obama even took office, funding was cut, cut, and then gutted, cut some more, and roasted over a fire. Obama is now riding roughshod over the courts to get the money invested in the program back out, because he can't overcome NIMBY.
So you've got the NRC on one side, trying to get past the endless appeals of the court system to get it done. You've got The NIMBYs on the other side, trying to keep it in court forever so it'll never get done... and you've got Obama in the middle saying "Fuck this -- Appeals court; GTFO." All he's trying to do is get some traction one way or another -- he picked pulling out because pressure was too great, not because the project isn't necessary. And yeah, I support that -- politically it's his only option. Just as the NRCs only option was to try to get around the courts before lobbyists got to Congress and killed it. It was a race... they lost. And the whole nation loses too.
All of this because our goddamned court system is a giant monkey wrench in the guts of anything that society needs, but individuals don't want near them: Like prisons, sewage processing plants, nuclear reactors, etc. I bravo both Obama and the NRC because they recognize it's the court system that's fucking things up and they tried to do and end run-around them. They both failed. They were both on opposite sides of the problem... but ultimately, they both agreed on where the problem was: The goddamned courts.
hat you didn't personally find it valuable doesn't make it so.
Dude, Maxwell's equations predicted this some hundred years before this experiment was done. By the time it was launched, the equations had been thoroughly and rigorously confirmed. By the time they launched, this was on the scale of commissioning a study to test the theory that apples dropped in Texas fall at almost the exact same rate as apples dropped in the middle of the Sahara desert in a vaccum. It's a well duh sort of "success" story. And as far as orbital mechanics... dude... we put men on the moon that year. I think we had the "orbital mechanics" problem sorted by then!
No. I stand by what I said: It was a waste of money. This was a project funded solely and only because we were scared of the Russians having superiority in space, so we were throwing money at anything that could even be remotely construed as giving us the edge over them... and all of that because they launched a baseball into orbit called Sputnick and America collectively shit its pants. Let me reiterate: Paranoia and fear were the only reason this experiment happened. It had exceptionally limited scientific value. It did not, in any appreciable way, contribute either in raw data or in theory, to our body of knowledge regarding electromagnetic effect, orbital mechanics, or any other area of science.
If you could get a single paramedic across town in 5 minutes,
Then you still have to get him, and the patient, back. And you may not have heard, but Americans are getting heavier by the year -- we're having to upgrade to heavy duty gurneys, MRI machines with reinforced steel loaders... people are having to be cut out of their homes for transport because they've turned all Jabba the Hut. You're not going to take two average americans, put them on a scale, and come in at under 400 pounds. Sorry. But even if you could, people lie about their weight and that means you'll be showing up with a medic dropping in ala Minority Report... only to wind up doing absolutely nothing. And this is ignoring the medical equipment he has to carry!
No. This not "fairly practical". This is barely even feasible, and certainly not a replacement for existing technology.
We can't illicit enough thrust from something so compact as to be practical.
I think you're confused. What you meant to say was we don't have anything with a high enough energy density and can be easily converted to power/thrust to be a useful fuel source for a jet pack. Thrust isn't the problem; I could strap a DC-10 engine to your back. It would definately provide enough thrust. It would simply crush you to death on landing. -_-
That said, it's got a 30 mile range. They really need to think about a rotobird variant, either single or double blade.
Jet. Pack. 'nuff said.
I'm guessing it could be done for less than $50k, bringing it well within range of the motorcycle/thrill seeker enthusiast...
First, a motorcycle rider isn't in the same category as a "Thrill seeker". Maybe the people that ride around in Ninjas and crotch rockets... but the rest of us who ride have a term for those people: Organ donors. Most people ride motorcycles because they're liberating, they're fuel efficient, and because they have fast reflexes. Mostly that's because of people who drive cars stupidly... motorcyclists are amongst the most safety-conscious people on the road. Okay, rant done.
Second... $50k? Really? Would you trust strapping yourself into a device that, should any major component fail will have the last few seconds of your life be you screaming "OH FUUUUUUUUUUUU---" as you crater into the Earth... that was built by the lowest bidder?
Jet packs have a very thin safety margin. You can't get away from that. So if you want something that's even remotely safe, you're going to need something that is regularly maintained by experts, and whose components are of the absolute highest quality. Because out of the hundreds of components required, only one has to fail to lead to a human hamburger moment. $50 is unrealistic.
Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard. And actually, that is the sum total of the story; everything else is just details. In this case, some people at the NRC (and the President) decided that the only way this was ever going to happen is if they take unilateral action, say fuck you to the NIMBYs, and move forward. Obviously, the courts are butthurt by this, because they want the chance to let every significant government action get bogged down in the quagmire that is our endless appeals process.
Ta da. The end. If you ask me... Bravo NRC, bravo Mr. President. Not because I agree with how they're doing it, but because it's probably the only way it'll ever get done... and this does need to get done. We can't wait another 10, 20, or 50 years while the government and the general public pulls its head out of its ass. Our planet is heating up. Fast. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period. This is scientific fact. We need nuclear power, and we need it now. Which means, we also need storage facilities. And we actually needed those storage facilities about 15 years ago... because right now, there is a lot of nuclear waste piling up in our major cities because they can't ship them anywhere due to this kind of regulatory bullshit. And guess what: The interim storage containers are starting to fail. Everywhere.
If someone doesn't step in and squash the NIMBYs (and ride rough-shod over the courts and their affinity for endless delays and accomodation for them), we will eventually have a major public health crisis on our hands. So again... I don't agree with how they did it, but the lack of effective alternatives weighed against the consequences makes this a no-brainer for me.
I've been following the Xbox one train-wreck pretty closely for a while now, but I don't remember any leaked memo's regarding how to spin "features", or indicating they weren't going back.....do you have links?
I, uhh, take it you that your internet connection to everything but Slashdot failed right before you posted this? Because otherwise, googling for "xbox leaked memo" might give you the answer. You can even push the "I'm feeling lucky" button. In fact, you'll have to dig in a few pages into the results before you find anything but the details of the leaked memo.
So what you're saying is, we launched a crap-ton of space junk into orbit to test the theory that our leaders will buy anything as long as it's for the war on terr--er, communism. Sorry. Got my time periods mixed up there for a sec.
Maybe if you hadn't acted like such arrogant assholes who said "this is what we're making, deal with it", consumers wouldn't be saying "well, we're not buying it, deal with it".
DING! Now, mind you, Sony didn't exactly win any friends by cutting out 'Other OS' from the Playstation 3, and most console manufacturers want to move in this direction. Microsoft was just the first to fall on the ceremonial sword. It's not so much that they tried this (and ate an enraged internet in response), it's the terrible PR response after that piqued my interest.
Leaked memos detailing how to spin it, several high-level managers saying they weren't turning back, insisting that the features under fire were "integral" to the XBone, and the list goes on... all of this was just really poor management. It pretty much proved to me that even if they did (and I knew they would) backpedal, they'd only do it for as long as it took for their sales figures to come up and then they'd ninja it back in.
This should be a case study handed out to everyone taking a business major on how not to do it. They have handed the PS4 their own head, served in the traditional fashion, because their own management was stubborn and resistant to public opinion. At the very least, they should have said "Based on customer feedback, we are re-evaluating our position," and then had a media blackout while they rounded the wagons and figured out what they wanted to do. The fact that it took this long, and is so far off people's radar that emotion has solidified and public opinion is now weighted in lead... well... they're fucked.
I suppose the same way everyone else does: By providing a good or service in exchange for monentary compensation. I know, it's an outmodded concept in the Web 2.0 way of thinking... but There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Advertising is not required for the survival of the species nor is its absence detrimental to long-term economic growth and stability.
Remember, the ad is loaded by the app, and given Android's fairly limited ways of monetization, developers would like to make some money back. If not through a 4rd party ad network, then through siphoning your user data off the phone to their servers.
I would ask you whether Linux requires monetization of its applications in order to be useful, or that developers are not compensated in other ways. Short answer: Yes.
Ads pretty much the only way to beat iOS at the revenue game.
Call me old fashioned, but the way to beat someone at a game is to play it better than they do. It's called competition, and if you provide a better product or service, then in a fair and open market, you should win. If this isn't true, then the problem is with the market, your perception of it, or with external forces.
Advertising on the internet is the most common route for malware by far. That's why I install ad blocking software everywhere. Marketers whine and complain about lost revenue and try to guilt you by saying they need that revenue to run the sites "for free"... but the truth is the way most advertising networks operate allow for "dancing, singing" ads -- that is, injectable javascript. Everything in the marketer's world these days is about using java to track, probe, manipulate, etc., web pages, with pop-overs, pop-unders, drive-bys, side to side scrollers, sound, motion, and anything else to get your attention.
None of this would be a problem if they stuck to fixed-size IMG tags and graphics. In other words... marketing is a virus. It's the plague. It's not the browser's fault... it's these asshole profiteers who try to be endlessly creative in force-feeding people crap they don't want.
So in high school I rigged a dashboard switch to the brake lights. If an annoying tailgater decided to touch the back of my car I simply held down the switch...which never failed to open up some space!
You don't really need to do that. Most vehicle brakes light before any significant pressure is applied -- you can usually trip it with just a light touch (not enough to affect speed). Unless your car is very new or the brakes were just replaced, there's usually enough play to get the light to come on.
ADDENDUM... especially when the left-lane idiot is going the same speed as the dump-truck next to him. So everyone is getting pelted with small pebbles and things and are unable to pass.
I don't need a new government standard to fix this. I already put a pair of pneumatically-driven TRAIN HORNS connected to a deep cycle marine battery and isolated with a big honking 1 farad capacitor and an industrial-grade current limiter under the hood. It's good for about 20 seconds of SWEET MOTHER OF GOD sound before it spends the next half hour recharging off the alternator.
Believe me... people get out of the way when their car is literally shaking from the noise behind them. And yes, I did dynamat the entire passenger compartment, even the firewall... which makes for whisper-quiet drives until HORN OF DEATH is activated. I have four sets of industrial-grade ear protection and a pack of disposable ear plugs in the glove box, because I measured the SPL at over 120dB even with all the sound-dampening. Unfortunately, the windshield itself transmits a significant amount of vibration through it and there's no practical way to fix that problem...
I've only had to use this weapons-grade horn a couple of times, but let me say, the effects were immediate. Make sure you have plenty of distance between the vehicle in front of you when you hit the button... people have a funny habit of standing on the brakes when their world turns a vibrating shade of red.
I personally guarantee you though... you'll be able to pass anyone after pushing the big blue button.
First thing this proposal needs is a way to update the firmware of any such technology in a direct, physical, and only-by-the-driver fashion. Because if there's one thing I've learned about government-sponsored "standards" in technology... it's that they will fuck it up.
The best approach will probably be creating some kind of virtual stack with an API interface to applications; Keep it flexible so that as security vulnerabilities are discovered (they WILL be discovered), the network stack itself can be upgraded. It should also be mandatory that manufacturers support any device/vehicle for at least twenty years. None of this crap like we have with cell phones where only a few patches or upgrades are released and then "ha ha, that's it... upgrade to our newer model now!" As well, every device should be required to be updated at least once a year; That all firmware has an expiration date, and newer versions of the protocol are intentionally only backwards compatible for one or two revisions prior.
This will ensure that (eventually) any vulnerable device or exploit is eventually totally removed from the road. Any such communication tech should also fail safe -- that is, if it isn't upgraded, or whatever... it just disables itself allowing for manual control. The operator should also have the option of immediately discontinuing connections to earlier versions of the protocol or disabling the device entirely (manual mode), and such options should be easily-accessible without any tools or special knowledge.
Lastly, all vehicles should have a prominent fail-safe button readily accessible by the driver without needing to take his/her eyes off the road, and should be tactile (not these capacitive buttons, but a real pushable button), which immediately disables all automation and computer control and resets all inputs to a "fail-safe" manual level to allow for immediate operation of the vehicle -- specifically to bring it to a stop as quickly and safely as possible. This button (ideally) will be located on the steering wheel or column and can be hit without taking hands off the wheel. Basically... and emergency kill switch that engages mechanical and direct linkage to critical vehicle inputs like steering, braking, and throttle.
However, why would it broadcast my MAC if it has no intention of connecting?
As I mentioned in yesterday's thread about this, to much applause and condemnation by people who apparently don't understand how packet-switched networks work at layer 2...
Broadcasting is to find out what's available or in-range. This is done because broadcasting the SSID is not mandatory in the 802.11(a/b/g/n) spec. As a result, almost every device defaults to sending a probe packet containing a list of preferred networks. A receiving station can then reply to that with the equivalent of a "yes, I'm here" packet. It's similar to how ARP queries work.
Of course, everyone thinks this is some kind of security vulnerability when it isn't. Any wifi connection sends the source and destination address in the clear on that channel during the setup phase. Disabling these probe packets would do nothing to address the problem; Anyone connecting to any other wifi device in any mode has to broadcast their MAC address anyway.
As well, Bluetooth also broadcasts its MAC address; while the range is considerably shorter, just about everyone these days has an 'ear leech' for their phone. Many car radios these days also support bluetooth pairing... so not just your phone will be picked up, but possibly your vehicle, ear piece, ipad, etc.
Again, this is not a security vulnerability. Not. Is not. It's built into the protocol. The protocol does not need to be changed. In fact, every packet-switched network depends on having a source and destination address... encrypted or not, you need to be able to route the packets.
It is this fundamental truth about networking that these market-droids are exploiting -- by itself, it means nothing, but over time you can build profiles of people's movements, and all it takes is using a credit card in a building that is also tracking your cell phone movements to tie your address to a realworld identity. And that is where the vulnerability comes in. It's not a problem with the technology, but rather with correlative statistical analysis.
This cannot be fixed by changing the wifi protocol, or any other OTA protocol. The closest you'll come to a "fix" will break networks very badly; Which would be to randomly generate MAC addresses on a per-session basis. Networking equipment handles MAC address collisions very badly because the MAC address is assumed to be unique. While in practice, the end-user may not notice any problems, it makes the job of every network administrator many times harder because the ugliest problem to track down on a network is intermittent problems. And that's what such a solution would create.
The correct solution in this case is to heavily fine and make illegal such data collection efforts. And yes, tin foil hat crowd, the government will probably still use such technology. But let's be honest: Even the NSA's recent privacy invasions are a trifling matter compared to private businesses doing it. The NSA at least is accountable to Congress. Businesses are accountable only to profit. With all the things going on in the world, this technology being used by the government is not high on my list of concerns.
No protocols have to be changed, and none of your posts are informative (at least not on this article). It's so simple and obvious that you don't have to broadcast to listen.
Amazingly though, in order to find out if the network can actually route to the internet, which is what the station is trying to find out... you have to associate to the AP. As well, many people disable SSID broadcasting, necessitating probes to determine if that network is actually present.
I love how ignorant slashmods keep marking this as 'troll' while others who actually understand networking keep marking it informative. Sadly, the technical proficiency of people on this site continues to track lower month over month since the Dice takeover.
Now people who suggest that the people who designed the internet might have known what they are doing are moderated down while the paranoid tin foil hat crowd gets modded up for suggesting that changing the protocol is a simple handwave and people with decades of experience in this sort of thing are incompetent...
Thus their marketting database is swiftly polluted and becomes much less valuable.
Cache poisoning is hardly a new thing... the problem is very few people have the money or resources to do it along with the technical expertise and desire. Since so few people do it, this would accomplish next to nothing; In just a few days, several million entries were gathered from these devices. You travelling around might hit.01% of the available contact points. Now, if I could clone a thousand of you and randomly space them about in the target area, maybe it'd be enough to render the data integrity suspect. But I highly doubt that there's a thousand people willing to buy netbooks and engage in such activity in any given geographically bound area that size. I doubt there's even 20 people in these neighborhoods that have the technical expertise to understand and impliment such a tactic.
The problem with dark matter observation in this case is that science is based on empirical observation. If you can't see it, can't measure it, and can't even draw inferences from what you can see and measure to detect something indirectly... it's not science. What this is saying is that the effects are so miniscule that there is no equipment presently capable of separating an actual effect or observation from systemic inaccuracy in the equipment itself. That is, you can't tell whether it's just random 'noise' or an actual signal.
As I understand it, there's a big empty space in most of our theories and observations that says something should be filling it up, but we have very little in the way of actual data of what exists within this hole. We can infer something is needed to balance out our observations, but we haven't actually seen the 'something'. It's like a shy cat in an apartment. You won't see that cat again, and an exhaustive search of most of the rooms in the apartment comes up empty, but something keeps eating the cat food. Thus, we have concluded there's a cat in the apartment... but nobody has actually ever seen the cat.
Saying people want to auto-connect to unsecured wifi networks is like saying people want to be able to drive at 150 mph. Yeah everyone would like to do it, but they realize it's such a stupid thing to do that almost nobody willingly does so.
Driving at 150 MPH is legal in many areas. The Autobahn, Montana during the day... And it's not stupid. As well, they're going considerably faster than 150 MPH with their phones; They're going at 670,616,629 mph.
A random unsecured wifi net in a public area is the perfect setup for a man-in-the-middle attack to harvest your email and bank login and passwords.
Find me a bank or online retailer that allows financial accounting data to be submitted over insecure connections instead of SSL. I can wait.
Auto-connecting to them is colossally stupid.
So is carrying a cell phone in public, according to some. People don't have to use military-grade encryption to browse wikipedia; There's plenty of things that open wifi is good for, even if it can be monitored. And if you're that worried about it, download Tor for Android (Orbit) or the iPhone and proxy everything through that.
Plenty of people want to make internet available to the general public for free; You know, that whole "Share and share alike" thing that we learned as kindergarners and then promptly forgot as adults as we all adopted the "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" stance.
If a probe request to identify nearby wifi nets requires a MAC address, that's a deficiency in the wifi handshaking standard IMHO.
I think I'll stick with what the IEEE working group came up with, which included Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, and dozens of independent network engineers over your "humble opinion", thanks. But if you can figure out a way to transfer data over a packet-based network without a source and destination in the header, I am quite certain the IEEE would give you a free membership and plane rides and hotel rooms for all their meetings to explain your new protocol.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, let me tell you from experience you want a leather one, not nylon. Those things chafe like you would not believe. Also, dual "device" holsters are not really practical... they're unwieldy, don't do the job, and often the device pops out which can be really frustrating.
Now, a lot of people here have mentioned size. This is an important consideration -- If you're going for a 10 or 12 inch device, you may find that the holster sags, and it can be very hard to get the device in. Something of a more manageable size, say 5 to 7 inches, gets the job done just as well, it's more practical, and it won't feel nearly as awkward walking around in public with.
Why not say fuck you to the NIMBYs? Aren't there fewer of them than all the rest of us?
I don't know: Do you want to live next to the national repository for all kinds of highly radioactive waste, knowing it's an ideal terrorist and military target because, if it were ever damaged and the nuclear material released, it would create a cloud of hazardous radioactive shit raining down over a wide area, making it arguably worse than if they'd just dropped a nuke on your head?
Of course not. It's like how pro-lifers are only one unplanned pregnancy away from being pro-choice. Situational politics. That said, the whole point of the government is to work for the greater good -- which sometimes means causing harm to a small number for the benefit of a large number. In this case though, the harm is a statistical abstraction, rather than a concrete example... though the logic is the same in both cases.
They wasted $10 on copper in a larger moon landing project. The only rational reading of your post is that you think all governmental space launches are a waste of money, and we should never have gone to the moon or built a shuttle.
Hmm... launching something into space travelling at about 7 miles per second, knowing it will disperse over a wide area, along an equitorial orbit, and made of thin, long bolts of metal... at the same time we're launching men into space. Yeah, I can't see how anyone might find the "only rational reading" of my concern is that it's a waste of money, instead of being not only a waste of money, but also a hazard to lives and property.
you think all governmental space launches are a waste of money, and we should never have gone to the moon or built a shuttle.
"Hello? Strawman Delivers? Yes, I'd like to order a Large special with extra hyperbole and a side of melodrama. Yes. Can I also get dessert -- one small slice of humble pie? Cool. I also have a coupon."
Ummm no. The problem here began because girlintraining just got caught not knowing what he was talking about, again, while acting like an expert about a topic, again.
First, not a dude. Second; Men are competitive, and they express that through abuse, derogatory comments, etc., because that's how you "win" in a competition. Now I don't assume that's sexist, in fact, I know it's precisely because they aren't being sexist that this behavior happens. I don't expect men to act less like assholes just because there's a woman around; much to the chagrin of my feminist peers. I just wanted that up there because you, like so many other people, either assume I'm a dude, or a dude pretending to be a chick, or whatever other politically-incorrect way of describing me you can come up with, including intentionally calling me by the wrong pronouns. I get it... you feel threatened, so you attack my gender, and it's not because you're sexist, but because you're an asshole. Now, with that sorted...
girlintraiing then just did a complete about-face attempting to salvage the situation, proving as well that honesty and accuracy on the tin isnt as important to him as appearances.
Actually, I could give a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut about appearances. It's one of the reasons moderators alternate between praise and frothing at the mouth with me; I don't take sides, I don't sugar coat, and I try to beat my opponent with facts, not name-calling or labelling (invariably the lead-on to a strawman). I don't care whether I'm +5 or -99; What I care about is trying to be as accurate as I can, as often as I can. Does that mean I don't trip over pedantic and nuanced differences? Of course not! Does it mean I don't occasionally mix up my facts, reverse the names, or add an extra word here or there that completely changes the meaning of what I was trying to say? Nope. I'm human, this is a forum not an academic paper, and I fuck up. And I'm big enough to admit when I do, if I do.
The common theme between the two posts is appearances, accuracy be damned.
Sooo... you're upset that my follow-up post is related to the original, meant to clarify what was apparently unclear to everyone else, and claim that this attempt to be more accurate... is evidence that I don't care about accuracy?
Huh. Okay. Have you considered a career in politics?
Tell me, Slashdot, how difficult would it be to rewrite an insurance billing system to aggregate a policyholder's out-of-pocket costs?
That depends entirely on whether the insurance company wants to remain in business or not. Next question.
here are a lot of IT admins not taking security seriously and if you couple that with inexperienced home admins the threat is real.
Hi. I've been doing network administration for close to a decade. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't cure stupid. And being smart and experience is no bar from fucking up either. I've done it. You've done it. The guy replying to this comment insisting he wouldn't, yup -- he's done it too. You don't get good network security on your own... it's a team effort. The more eyeballs you have, the less of a chance of screwing up. But it's never zero. There's never perfect security; If it was achievable, I'd be out of a job.
So let's just put to bed now the notion that "tons of rogue apps and sites infected" wouldn't happen if the people on the other end were intelligent and experienced. It'll happen to anyone you put on the other side of that router. Anyone.
Now, let's talk about servers: On the internet, there's no such thing. Oh, you know and I know what a server is. But defining a server at the network level is like defining porn: You know it when you see it. But it's an arbitrary distinction. As far as the network is concerned, it's just a network address... like all the other network addresses. Its only job is to get the packets from the source to the destination. At the network level (ie, the internet), there's no such thing as a server. Now, here's the rub; Whatever arbitrary definition you come up with for what a server is, you're going to find an exception. A grey area. Bittorrent has no concept of a server, for example -- everyone is both a client and a server... or more accurately, a peer. Many protocols are like that.
From a practical standpoint, there is no way to define a server that won't, in some manner, ban a legitimate use situation by someone who isn't trying to "serve" anything. It's unenforceable anyway -- you're just a tunneled connection away from plausible deniability. Connect your server to the Tor network as a hidden service...
Ultimately, the only thing the ISP will be able to claim is that your upload:download ratio isn't like most of the others on their network. And this, right here, is the key to the argument. ISPs don't want people to have a lot of upstream capacity because they can't cache it, buffer it, or otherwise manipulate the data streams to avoid paying for bandwidth out to their border routers. Comcast, for example, intercepts windows update connections and re-routes them to local servers. They have hundreds of them. As far as the actual download of a patch goes, Microsoft never hears from your computer if you're a Comcast user.
Stuff like that is the reason for the fail whale language about "servers"; It means less profit. Network administration and security is separate -- it may be the excuse, but it's not the reason.
...and why are you giving the NRC and Obama bravo's? They are CLOSING Yucca mountain, not getting it completed and therefore usable.
Umm, maybe this is a bit of an obvious thing to say, but given that you're at a +5 informative and I've been modded troll, perhaps not obvious enough...
Why are they closing Yucca mountain?
Is it perhaps because all the money was witheld due to pressure from the NIMBYs, thus leaving closure the only option? The NRC pushed for years to get this operational and failed time and time again... because they couldn't ride roughshod over the courts. They tried. They failed. I admire that effort, though it failed.
Obama had no choice but to mothball it; It was even part of his 2008 election campaign -- the NIMBYs, led by their commander Senator Harry Reid, vigorously campaigned to kill it. They won. Before Obama even took office, funding was cut, cut, and then gutted, cut some more, and roasted over a fire. Obama is now riding roughshod over the courts to get the money invested in the program back out, because he can't overcome NIMBY.
So you've got the NRC on one side, trying to get past the endless appeals of the court system to get it done. You've got The NIMBYs on the other side, trying to keep it in court forever so it'll never get done... and you've got Obama in the middle saying "Fuck this -- Appeals court; GTFO." All he's trying to do is get some traction one way or another -- he picked pulling out because pressure was too great, not because the project isn't necessary. And yeah, I support that -- politically it's his only option. Just as the NRCs only option was to try to get around the courts before lobbyists got to Congress and killed it. It was a race... they lost. And the whole nation loses too.
All of this because our goddamned court system is a giant monkey wrench in the guts of anything that society needs, but individuals don't want near them: Like prisons, sewage processing plants, nuclear reactors, etc. I bravo both Obama and the NRC because they recognize it's the court system that's fucking things up and they tried to do and end run-around them. They both failed. They were both on opposite sides of the problem... but ultimately, they both agreed on where the problem was: The goddamned courts.
hat you didn't personally find it valuable doesn't make it so.
Dude, Maxwell's equations predicted this some hundred years before this experiment was done. By the time it was launched, the equations had been thoroughly and rigorously confirmed. By the time they launched, this was on the scale of commissioning a study to test the theory that apples dropped in Texas fall at almost the exact same rate as apples dropped in the middle of the Sahara desert in a vaccum. It's a well duh sort of "success" story. And as far as orbital mechanics... dude... we put men on the moon that year. I think we had the "orbital mechanics" problem sorted by then!
No. I stand by what I said: It was a waste of money. This was a project funded solely and only because we were scared of the Russians having superiority in space, so we were throwing money at anything that could even be remotely construed as giving us the edge over them... and all of that because they launched a baseball into orbit called Sputnick and America collectively shit its pants. Let me reiterate: Paranoia and fear were the only reason this experiment happened. It had exceptionally limited scientific value. It did not, in any appreciable way, contribute either in raw data or in theory, to our body of knowledge regarding electromagnetic effect, orbital mechanics, or any other area of science.
If you could get a single paramedic across town in 5 minutes,
Then you still have to get him, and the patient, back. And you may not have heard, but Americans are getting heavier by the year -- we're having to upgrade to heavy duty gurneys, MRI machines with reinforced steel loaders... people are having to be cut out of their homes for transport because they've turned all Jabba the Hut. You're not going to take two average americans, put them on a scale, and come in at under 400 pounds. Sorry. But even if you could, people lie about their weight and that means you'll be showing up with a medic dropping in ala Minority Report... only to wind up doing absolutely nothing. And this is ignoring the medical equipment he has to carry!
No. This not "fairly practical". This is barely even feasible, and certainly not a replacement for existing technology.
We can't illicit enough thrust from something so compact as to be practical.
I think you're confused. What you meant to say was we don't have anything with a high enough energy density and can be easily converted to power/thrust to be a useful fuel source for a jet pack. Thrust isn't the problem; I could strap a DC-10 engine to your back. It would definately provide enough thrust. It would simply crush you to death on landing. -_-
That said, it's got a 30 mile range. They really need to think about a rotobird variant, either single or double blade.
Jet. Pack. 'nuff said.
I'm guessing it could be done for less than $50k, bringing it well within range of the motorcycle/thrill seeker enthusiast...
First, a motorcycle rider isn't in the same category as a "Thrill seeker". Maybe the people that ride around in Ninjas and crotch rockets... but the rest of us who ride have a term for those people: Organ donors. Most people ride motorcycles because they're liberating, they're fuel efficient, and because they have fast reflexes. Mostly that's because of people who drive cars stupidly... motorcyclists are amongst the most safety-conscious people on the road. Okay, rant done.
Second... $50k? Really? Would you trust strapping yourself into a device that, should any major component fail will have the last few seconds of your life be you screaming "OH FUUUUUUUUUUUU---" as you crater into the Earth... that was built by the lowest bidder?
Jet packs have a very thin safety margin. You can't get away from that. So if you want something that's even remotely safe, you're going to need something that is regularly maintained by experts, and whose components are of the absolute highest quality. Because out of the hundreds of components required, only one has to fail to lead to a human hamburger moment. $50 is unrealistic.
Here's the real story: Nobody wants to have a nuclear waste disposal site in their backyard. And actually, that is the sum total of the story; everything else is just details. In this case, some people at the NRC (and the President) decided that the only way this was ever going to happen is if they take unilateral action, say fuck you to the NIMBYs, and move forward. Obviously, the courts are butthurt by this, because they want the chance to let every significant government action get bogged down in the quagmire that is our endless appeals process.
Ta da. The end. If you ask me... Bravo NRC, bravo Mr. President. Not because I agree with how they're doing it, but because it's probably the only way it'll ever get done... and this does need to get done. We can't wait another 10, 20, or 50 years while the government and the general public pulls its head out of its ass. Our planet is heating up. Fast. Fossil fuels are not sustainable. Period. This is scientific fact. We need nuclear power, and we need it now. Which means, we also need storage facilities. And we actually needed those storage facilities about 15 years ago... because right now, there is a lot of nuclear waste piling up in our major cities because they can't ship them anywhere due to this kind of regulatory bullshit. And guess what: The interim storage containers are starting to fail. Everywhere.
If someone doesn't step in and squash the NIMBYs (and ride rough-shod over the courts and their affinity for endless delays and accomodation for them), we will eventually have a major public health crisis on our hands. So again... I don't agree with how they did it, but the lack of effective alternatives weighed against the consequences makes this a no-brainer for me.
I've been following the Xbox one train-wreck pretty closely for a while now, but I don't remember any leaked memo's regarding how to spin "features", or indicating they weren't going back.....do you have links?
I, uhh, take it you that your internet connection to everything but Slashdot failed right before you posted this? Because otherwise, googling for "xbox leaked memo" might give you the answer. You can even push the "I'm feeling lucky" button. In fact, you'll have to dig in a few pages into the results before you find anything but the details of the leaked memo.
Anyway, hope your internet gets fixed soon.
So what you're saying is, we launched a crap-ton of space junk into orbit to test the theory that our leaders will buy anything as long as it's for the war on terr--er, communism. Sorry. Got my time periods mixed up there for a sec.
Maybe if you hadn't acted like such arrogant assholes who said "this is what we're making, deal with it", consumers wouldn't be saying "well, we're not buying it, deal with it".
DING! Now, mind you, Sony didn't exactly win any friends by cutting out 'Other OS' from the Playstation 3, and most console manufacturers want to move in this direction. Microsoft was just the first to fall on the ceremonial sword. It's not so much that they tried this (and ate an enraged internet in response), it's the terrible PR response after that piqued my interest.
Leaked memos detailing how to spin it, several high-level managers saying they weren't turning back, insisting that the features under fire were "integral" to the XBone, and the list goes on... all of this was just really poor management. It pretty much proved to me that even if they did (and I knew they would) backpedal, they'd only do it for as long as it took for their sales figures to come up and then they'd ninja it back in.
This should be a case study handed out to everyone taking a business major on how not to do it. They have handed the PS4 their own head, served in the traditional fashion, because their own management was stubborn and resistant to public opinion. At the very least, they should have said "Based on customer feedback, we are re-evaluating our position," and then had a media blackout while they rounded the wagons and figured out what they wanted to do. The fact that it took this long, and is so far off people's radar that emotion has solidified and public opinion is now weighted in lead... well... they're fucked.
Except well, how do you expect developers to eat?
I suppose the same way everyone else does: By providing a good or service in exchange for monentary compensation. I know, it's an outmodded concept in the Web 2.0 way of thinking... but There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Advertising is not required for the survival of the species nor is its absence detrimental to long-term economic growth and stability.
Remember, the ad is loaded by the app, and given Android's fairly limited ways of monetization, developers would like to make some money back. If not through a 4rd party ad network, then through siphoning your user data off the phone to their servers.
I would ask you whether Linux requires monetization of its applications in order to be useful, or that developers are not compensated in other ways. Short answer: Yes.
Ads pretty much the only way to beat iOS at the revenue game.
Call me old fashioned, but the way to beat someone at a game is to play it better than they do. It's called competition, and if you provide a better product or service, then in a fair and open market, you should win. If this isn't true, then the problem is with the market, your perception of it, or with external forces.
Advertising on the internet is the most common route for malware by far. That's why I install ad blocking software everywhere. Marketers whine and complain about lost revenue and try to guilt you by saying they need that revenue to run the sites "for free"... but the truth is the way most advertising networks operate allow for "dancing, singing" ads -- that is, injectable javascript. Everything in the marketer's world these days is about using java to track, probe, manipulate, etc., web pages, with pop-overs, pop-unders, drive-bys, side to side scrollers, sound, motion, and anything else to get your attention.
None of this would be a problem if they stuck to fixed-size IMG tags and graphics. In other words... marketing is a virus. It's the plague. It's not the browser's fault... it's these asshole profiteers who try to be endlessly creative in force-feeding people crap they don't want.
So in high school I rigged a dashboard switch to the brake lights. If an annoying tailgater decided to touch the back of my car I simply held down the switch...which never failed to open up some space!
You don't really need to do that. Most vehicle brakes light before any significant pressure is applied -- you can usually trip it with just a light touch (not enough to affect speed). Unless your car is very new or the brakes were just replaced, there's usually enough play to get the light to come on.
ADDENDUM... especially when the left-lane idiot is going the same speed as the dump-truck next to him. So everyone is getting pelted with small pebbles and things and are unable to pass.
I don't need a new government standard to fix this. I already put a pair of pneumatically-driven TRAIN HORNS connected to a deep cycle marine battery and isolated with a big honking 1 farad capacitor and an industrial-grade current limiter under the hood. It's good for about 20 seconds of SWEET MOTHER OF GOD sound before it spends the next half hour recharging off the alternator.
Believe me... people get out of the way when their car is literally shaking from the noise behind them. And yes, I did dynamat the entire passenger compartment, even the firewall... which makes for whisper-quiet drives until HORN OF DEATH is activated. I have four sets of industrial-grade ear protection and a pack of disposable ear plugs in the glove box, because I measured the SPL at over 120dB even with all the sound-dampening. Unfortunately, the windshield itself transmits a significant amount of vibration through it and there's no practical way to fix that problem...
I've only had to use this weapons-grade horn a couple of times, but let me say, the effects were immediate. Make sure you have plenty of distance between the vehicle in front of you when you hit the button... people have a funny habit of standing on the brakes when their world turns a vibrating shade of red.
I personally guarantee you though... you'll be able to pass anyone after pushing the big blue button.
First thing this proposal needs is a way to update the firmware of any such technology in a direct, physical, and only-by-the-driver fashion. Because if there's one thing I've learned about government-sponsored "standards" in technology... it's that they will fuck it up.
The best approach will probably be creating some kind of virtual stack with an API interface to applications; Keep it flexible so that as security vulnerabilities are discovered (they WILL be discovered), the network stack itself can be upgraded. It should also be mandatory that manufacturers support any device/vehicle for at least twenty years. None of this crap like we have with cell phones where only a few patches or upgrades are released and then "ha ha, that's it ... upgrade to our newer model now!" As well, every device should be required to be updated at least once a year; That all firmware has an expiration date, and newer versions of the protocol are intentionally only backwards compatible for one or two revisions prior.
This will ensure that (eventually) any vulnerable device or exploit is eventually totally removed from the road. Any such communication tech should also fail safe -- that is, if it isn't upgraded, or whatever... it just disables itself allowing for manual control. The operator should also have the option of immediately discontinuing connections to earlier versions of the protocol or disabling the device entirely (manual mode), and such options should be easily-accessible without any tools or special knowledge.
Lastly, all vehicles should have a prominent fail-safe button readily accessible by the driver without needing to take his/her eyes off the road, and should be tactile (not these capacitive buttons, but a real pushable button), which immediately disables all automation and computer control and resets all inputs to a "fail-safe" manual level to allow for immediate operation of the vehicle -- specifically to bring it to a stop as quickly and safely as possible. This button (ideally) will be located on the steering wheel or column and can be hit without taking hands off the wheel. Basically... and emergency kill switch that engages mechanical and direct linkage to critical vehicle inputs like steering, braking, and throttle.
However, why would it broadcast my MAC if it has no intention of connecting?
As I mentioned in yesterday's thread about this, to much applause and condemnation by people who apparently don't understand how packet-switched networks work at layer 2...
Broadcasting is to find out what's available or in-range. This is done because broadcasting the SSID is not mandatory in the 802.11(a/b/g/n) spec. As a result, almost every device defaults to sending a probe packet containing a list of preferred networks. A receiving station can then reply to that with the equivalent of a "yes, I'm here" packet. It's similar to how ARP queries work.
Of course, everyone thinks this is some kind of security vulnerability when it isn't. Any wifi connection sends the source and destination address in the clear on that channel during the setup phase. Disabling these probe packets would do nothing to address the problem; Anyone connecting to any other wifi device in any mode has to broadcast their MAC address anyway.
As well, Bluetooth also broadcasts its MAC address; while the range is considerably shorter, just about everyone these days has an 'ear leech' for their phone. Many car radios these days also support bluetooth pairing... so not just your phone will be picked up, but possibly your vehicle, ear piece, ipad, etc.
Again, this is not a security vulnerability. Not. Is not. It's built into the protocol. The protocol does not need to be changed. In fact, every packet-switched network depends on having a source and destination address... encrypted or not, you need to be able to route the packets.
It is this fundamental truth about networking that these market-droids are exploiting -- by itself, it means nothing, but over time you can build profiles of people's movements, and all it takes is using a credit card in a building that is also tracking your cell phone movements to tie your address to a realworld identity. And that is where the vulnerability comes in. It's not a problem with the technology, but rather with correlative statistical analysis.
This cannot be fixed by changing the wifi protocol, or any other OTA protocol. The closest you'll come to a "fix" will break networks very badly; Which would be to randomly generate MAC addresses on a per-session basis. Networking equipment handles MAC address collisions very badly because the MAC address is assumed to be unique. While in practice, the end-user may not notice any problems, it makes the job of every network administrator many times harder because the ugliest problem to track down on a network is intermittent problems. And that's what such a solution would create.
The correct solution in this case is to heavily fine and make illegal such data collection efforts. And yes, tin foil hat crowd, the government will probably still use such technology. But let's be honest: Even the NSA's recent privacy invasions are a trifling matter compared to private businesses doing it. The NSA at least is accountable to Congress. Businesses are accountable only to profit. With all the things going on in the world, this technology being used by the government is not high on my list of concerns.
No protocols have to be changed, and none of your posts are informative (at least not on this article). It's so simple and obvious that you don't have to broadcast to listen.
Amazingly though, in order to find out if the network can actually route to the internet, which is what the station is trying to find out... you have to associate to the AP. As well, many people disable SSID broadcasting, necessitating probes to determine if that network is actually present.
It's so simple and obvious!
I love how ignorant slashmods keep marking this as 'troll' while others who actually understand networking keep marking it informative. Sadly, the technical proficiency of people on this site continues to track lower month over month since the Dice takeover.
Now people who suggest that the people who designed the internet might have known what they are doing are moderated down while the paranoid tin foil hat crowd gets modded up for suggesting that changing the protocol is a simple handwave and people with decades of experience in this sort of thing are incompetent...
Thus their marketting database is swiftly polluted and becomes much less valuable.
Cache poisoning is hardly a new thing... the problem is very few people have the money or resources to do it along with the technical expertise and desire. Since so few people do it, this would accomplish next to nothing; In just a few days, several million entries were gathered from these devices. You travelling around might hit .01% of the available contact points. Now, if I could clone a thousand of you and randomly space them about in the target area, maybe it'd be enough to render the data integrity suspect. But I highly doubt that there's a thousand people willing to buy netbooks and engage in such activity in any given geographically bound area that size. I doubt there's even 20 people in these neighborhoods that have the technical expertise to understand and impliment such a tactic.
The problem with dark matter observation in this case is that science is based on empirical observation. If you can't see it, can't measure it, and can't even draw inferences from what you can see and measure to detect something indirectly... it's not science. What this is saying is that the effects are so miniscule that there is no equipment presently capable of separating an actual effect or observation from systemic inaccuracy in the equipment itself. That is, you can't tell whether it's just random 'noise' or an actual signal.
As I understand it, there's a big empty space in most of our theories and observations that says something should be filling it up, but we have very little in the way of actual data of what exists within this hole. We can infer something is needed to balance out our observations, but we haven't actually seen the 'something'. It's like a shy cat in an apartment. You won't see that cat again, and an exhaustive search of most of the rooms in the apartment comes up empty, but something keeps eating the cat food. Thus, we have concluded there's a cat in the apartment... but nobody has actually ever seen the cat.
Saying people want to auto-connect to unsecured wifi networks is like saying people want to be able to drive at 150 mph. Yeah everyone would like to do it, but they realize it's such a stupid thing to do that almost nobody willingly does so.
Driving at 150 MPH is legal in many areas. The Autobahn, Montana during the day... And it's not stupid. As well, they're going considerably faster than 150 MPH with their phones; They're going at 670,616,629 mph.
A random unsecured wifi net in a public area is the perfect setup for a man-in-the-middle attack to harvest your email and bank login and passwords.
Find me a bank or online retailer that allows financial accounting data to be submitted over insecure connections instead of SSL. I can wait.
Auto-connecting to them is colossally stupid.
So is carrying a cell phone in public, according to some. People don't have to use military-grade encryption to browse wikipedia; There's plenty of things that open wifi is good for, even if it can be monitored. And if you're that worried about it, download Tor for Android (Orbit) or the iPhone and proxy everything through that.
Plenty of people want to make internet available to the general public for free; You know, that whole "Share and share alike" thing that we learned as kindergarners and then promptly forgot as adults as we all adopted the "what's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" stance.
If a probe request to identify nearby wifi nets requires a MAC address, that's a deficiency in the wifi handshaking
standard IMHO.
I think I'll stick with what the IEEE working group came up with, which included Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard, and dozens of independent network engineers over your "humble opinion", thanks. But if you can figure out a way to transfer data over a packet-based network without a source and destination in the header, I am quite certain the IEEE would give you a free membership and plane rides and hotel rooms for all their meetings to explain your new protocol.
They killed it months ago. Now they are just dragging the corpse through the streets instead of giving it a proper burial.
obligatory Monty Python.