I don't get it
on
Half Mast
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I mean, who were these evil people that gave you such a hard time that you still care about them tens of years later? To tell the truth, I can barely remember the names of most of the people I went to school with, and the only people I keep in touch from high school are all close personal friends. I'm not saying elementary and high school were easy times for me, but I don't dwell on them. Things are good now! I have the respect and admiration of my peers, I do pretty much anything I want, etc.
I mean, who cares about what some foolish child did years ago? Who cares about what those people are doing today? Personally, I couldn't care less.
You assert that with wireless networks, access point operators "own" the network medium. This is not the case. At best, the unlicensed use of the medium is loaned to WAP ops from the appropriate regulatory bodies. This constrains guerilla wireless in several interesting ways. Unlicensed operators cannot transmit at a peak envelope power above a certain threshold, they are limited in the amount of RF spectrum they may use, and they must deal with contention or interference issues on their own, as the regulatory body will not intervene (except to enforce PEP and spectrum limits). One could posit a simple and legal interference system that would disrupt any guerilla WLAN (when you describe the first "cordless phone DDoS", I want to get credited!). One could also argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when one is broadcasting a service set identifier (and isn't that the point of a guerilla network, that of open access?), hence the usual restrictions on trap-and-trace may not apply (and even with link- or network-level encryption, an eavesdropper can at least do traffic analysis).
And as much as I'd like to see true community-owned and -operated telecommunications infrastructure, it's just too hard to do right now. There are geographical limitations. There is a time investment. There is a certain minimum level of expertise on the part of the WAP operators. Hell, there's equipment to buy and electricity to pay for. And God help the operators if some ethically-immature geek decides to have a little fun with the freewlan at the community's expense.
So as much as I'd like to live in your future, as much as I hope it happens and will work toward it myself (guerilla wireless being so freaking cool!), I don't think it will happen.
Anyway, rant mode off. Sorry to unload on you like this. I'm probably not making any sense at this point and will get moderated as such.:)
The Common Criteria Evaluation Assurance Level 4 evaluation given to Windows 2000 only means that Microsoft followed some kind of software engineering methodology when designing and implementing Windows 2000. In fact, the operating system protection profile Microsoft used describes a non-hostile environment (e.g. no viruses, no malicious employees, etc). Jonathan Shapiro said it best in Understanding the Windows EAL4 Evaluation:
Security experts have been saying for years that the security of the Windows family of products is hopelessly inadequate. Now there is a rigorous government certification confirming this.
Your complaint about the implementation of the separation of church and state would be more effective if you didn't quote the tired old examples of the pledge or of posting the 10 commandments. It may be more insightful to decry the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. Or to denounce the practice of only recognizing "legitimate" religions when determining who may officiate a marriage or who may minister to soldiers. It would help your arguments if you tried to nail down a good definition of "religion", as many minds qualify atheism and agnosticism as being "religions", and of "framers", as this could constitute (heh) a lot more people than just the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It would also be interesting to read your views on politicians' and bureaucrats' right to free speech.
Please don't argue how those framers' mentioning God in their writings did not refer to a particular Christian formulation, as such arguments (while well documented) are fruitless and the beginnings of a potential counter-argument, e.g. some under-specified dieism is still a religion, and if the framers embraced it in a limited fashion, then we are doing no worse.
Please also note that nowhere in this comment have I specified my position on the matter at hand, though I hope that doesn't restrain you from making incorrect assumptions.
I was not impressed with Ms. Lunori's paper. It suffers from a severe lack of detail. There are no reasoned arguments, no evidence, and no citations. It is unorganized, jumping between unrelated topics without establishing any meaningful connections. As interesting as the topic could be, her paper is merely a rant, at best.
How can they now show the special relationship between Gandlaf/Denethor/Faramir now. That was a very interesting part of Return of the King that will almost certainly be lost now.
I must have missed that part when I read (and re-read) the Return of the King. What was their relationship? (Denethor, if I recall correctly, was the Steward of Gondor, right?)
Sorry to get onto an off-topic religious rant, but may I remind the original poster that "Sic et fides, si opera non habuerit, mortua est per se" (James 2:17). And personally, I'd rather worship God in deed and attitude, you know, actually go an help someone instead of spouting empty sophistry to the needy. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Since we're in the realm of theory, why not build a CCD camera the size of a computer screen? Proper alignment would be a bitch (or not, with modern flat-panel displays), not to mention recompressing the old video, artifacts and all, but it would be a bit-for-bit reconstruction of the original image.
Another alternative would be to use one of the many TEMPEST-like screen reconstruction techniques, e.g. Van Eck phreaking or sampling the flashes made by the electron gun.
Oops, I guess I just described several circumvision devices. Guess that's illegal, currently...
Presidents since Jackson replaced the encumbent bureaucrats with their supporters and favorites, and it's not like Bush is acting any different than any other Democrat or Republican president. As far as I'm concerned, such politicians are all scum. They obviously don't have the best interests of the nation in mind. Instead, they prefer to cater to whatever block of voters got them into power. The irony is that we are the ones who confirm this by actually voting them in!
I try to learn as many programming languages as possible. While programming languages such as FORTRAN, Common Lisp, and even COBOL are indeed very old, there are many implementations both commercial and non-commercial being actively maintained and used. Even if I find that the language doesn't provide the tools I need, as is the case with FORTRAN and COBOL, the process of exercising my mind through learning has made me a better computer scientist.
I'm also a happy Road Runner Commercial Services (RRCS) customer, though I am pretty small (a hobbyist). "Real" companies use T1's for more than just data. In fact, a T1 is sometimes implemented to save money on long distance calls, with inter-office data (or Internet connectivity) as an afterthought. In this regards, RRCS doesn't really compete.
IIRC, the X-Wing crack is easier than that. I remember inputting ASCII NULs to replace the strings, allowing one to just hit Enter to bypass the copy protection. But I've slept since then and may be recalling a different game.
I must say that about the only thing that makes me feel really elite is cracking software, even if it's just patching a list of strings somewhere. Isn't that sad?
Just so no one else has to navigate their crappy JavaScript web site, here are direct links to the Real Audio streams:
high quality and enhanced quality.
Hm, didn't notice the text-only mode link before I started wading through all that HTML. But it doesn't seem to have links to the Real Audio files, either, so there you go.
Changing your MAC or using unsolicited ARP broadcasts to take over another IP address are exactly what IP spoofing is all about. It's more than just setting a new MAC through ifconfig or Device Manager, too. Usually, you're doing some kind of ARP poison routing to do man-in-the-middle attacks or sniffing.
Buy CheckPoint FireWall-1 in addition to your access points. There are SOHO versions of FW1 on dedicated hardware (e.g. Nokia IP71) that retail for less than $1000 and can accomodate up to 50 users. Use its Session Authentication agent to arbitrate access to anything other than DHCP and don't bother with enabling WEP. Unfortunately, the agent seems to be only available for Windows 9X/ME/NT/2K/XP.
Buy Cisco access points and Cisco ACS software and enable LEAP. While non-standard, you are probably forcing them to buy a wireless card anyway, and Cisco's client devices aren't all that expensive. The Aironet device is supported in Windows and Windows CE, Linux, and MacOS 9.x and 10.x. My employer uses LEAP and it works great.
Hack your own. Set up Linux and Squid and Apache and transparent forwarding to redirect unauthenticated web traffic to a HTTPS login form. Have the form automatically add the necessary firewall rules to allow them out, and have a cron job remove them after a delay. Upside: A five banana problem once you've mirrored enough of CPAN to write the Perl scripts. Downside: Easily spoofed/hacked with a copy of AirSnort, Kismet, and Ettercap.
WEP key management sucks so hard that relying on it is stupid. I'd probably go the LEAP route just because it is so damn easy on both the client side and on the server side, even though I hate Cisco. The build-it-yourself solution would be a complete kludge and would be totally unsupportable except by the author, i.e. lots of work. The CheckPoint firewall is in between the Cisco (easy) and do-it-yourself (really hard) in terms of difficulty.
Anyway, I'm rambling now, so hopefully this helps and makes sense. If you have questions, post 'em here.
So you think withour[sic] Religion we would have Anarchy? I think without religion we would have had a lot less wars in the past 5000 years.
You must have missed the recent article in American Scientist on conflict. Statisticians seem to think that conflicts occur randomly, that "the data offer no reason to believe that wars are anything other than randomly distributed accidents." Here, "wars" include any deadly conflict down to the individual level (e.g. murder). With or without religion, we are a murderous race. If it isn't religion we're fighting about, it's about trade, or it's about skin color, or it's about the country from which your great-grandparents emigrated, or it's about how much of a certain resource you have, et cetera ad nauseum. Heck, some days, it's just becuase somebody is being an asshole and is getting in someone else's way.
I think, regardless what the philosophers or scientists say, that we are a bunch of primitive animals that are barely civilized enough to bathe on a semi-frequent basis (and that only recently). In that context, killing each other or our own spawn is merely "human nature," regardless of our justifications (like "oh, but he was going to kill me" or "fight to preserve our freedom" or "it's my body").
That's actually a pretty good idea that at least one other author worked into his stories. In Dan Simmons' Hyperion novels, all humans have neural implants allowing them to access computational and communication resources directly, and it turns out that the A.I.'s "live" in the unused storage capacity of the human minds that are networked in. It is chilling, to say the least, as the A.I.'s want to remove any autonomy from the humans, and in fact, the A.I.'s destroy Earth and do lots of other Really Bad Things before the Forces of Good show up to kick some ass.
And one of these days I'll have to finish reading the series!:)
It's a good thing, too, that computers can't speak. Sure, it would be nice to command a computer to "search google for anime pr0n", but most likely the first thing you'd hear back is some 30-second ad along the lines of "Web search brought to you by Pr0n Magazine". The day computers need a commercial skip button is the day I'm giving it all up and becoming a monk. I think I'll stick to not looking at anything other than the search hits, thank you very much. (Of course, if you don't look at web ads you're STEALING from the Internet!)
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, who were these evil people that gave you such a hard time that you still care about them tens of years later? To tell the truth, I can barely remember the names of most of the people I went to school with, and the only people I keep in touch from high school are all close personal friends. I'm not saying elementary and high school were easy times for me, but I don't dwell on them. Things are good now! I have the respect and admiration of my peers, I do pretty much anything I want, etc.
I mean, who cares about what some foolish child did years ago? Who cares about what those people are doing today? Personally, I couldn't care less.
Everybody knows pollution is a SYN!
You assert that with wireless networks, access point operators "own" the network medium. This is not the case. At best, the unlicensed use of the medium is loaned to WAP ops from the appropriate regulatory bodies. This constrains guerilla wireless in several interesting ways. Unlicensed operators cannot transmit at a peak envelope power above a certain threshold, they are limited in the amount of RF spectrum they may use, and they must deal with contention or interference issues on their own, as the regulatory body will not intervene (except to enforce PEP and spectrum limits). One could posit a simple and legal interference system that would disrupt any guerilla WLAN (when you describe the first "cordless phone DDoS", I want to get credited!). One could also argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy when one is broadcasting a service set identifier (and isn't that the point of a guerilla network, that of open access?), hence the usual restrictions on trap-and-trace may not apply (and even with link- or network-level encryption, an eavesdropper can at least do traffic analysis).
And as much as I'd like to see true community-owned and -operated telecommunications infrastructure, it's just too hard to do right now. There are geographical limitations. There is a time investment. There is a certain minimum level of expertise on the part of the WAP operators. Hell, there's equipment to buy and electricity to pay for. And God help the operators if some ethically-immature geek decides to have a little fun with the freewlan at the community's expense.
So as much as I'd like to live in your future, as much as I hope it happens and will work toward it myself (guerilla wireless being so freaking cool!), I don't think it will happen.
Anyway, rant mode off. Sorry to unload on you like this. I'm probably not making any sense at this point and will get moderated as such. :)
The Common Criteria Evaluation Assurance Level 4 evaluation given to Windows 2000 only means that Microsoft followed some kind of software engineering methodology when designing and implementing Windows 2000. In fact, the operating system protection profile Microsoft used describes a non-hostile environment (e.g. no viruses, no malicious employees, etc). Jonathan Shapiro said it best in Understanding the Windows EAL4 Evaluation:
Definitely one for the sig quote file.Your complaint about the implementation of the separation of church and state would be more effective if you didn't quote the tired old examples of the pledge or of posting the 10 commandments. It may be more insightful to decry the tax-exempt status of religious organizations. Or to denounce the practice of only recognizing "legitimate" religions when determining who may officiate a marriage or who may minister to soldiers. It would help your arguments if you tried to nail down a good definition of "religion", as many minds qualify atheism and agnosticism as being "religions", and of "framers", as this could constitute (heh) a lot more people than just the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It would also be interesting to read your views on politicians' and bureaucrats' right to free speech.
Please don't argue how those framers' mentioning God in their writings did not refer to a particular Christian formulation, as such arguments (while well documented) are fruitless and the beginnings of a potential counter-argument, e.g. some under-specified dieism is still a religion, and if the framers embraced it in a limited fashion, then we are doing no worse.
Please also note that nowhere in this comment have I specified my position on the matter at hand, though I hope that doesn't restrain you from making incorrect assumptions.
I was not impressed with Ms. Lunori's paper. It suffers from a severe lack of detail. There are no reasoned arguments, no evidence, and no citations. It is unorganized, jumping between unrelated topics without establishing any meaningful connections. As interesting as the topic could be, her paper is merely a rant, at best.
It's a favorite of mine. I wish I had an MP3 of it. I first heard it on the Doctor Demento show. It's called Star Trekkin'.
And just who should we vote for instead? The ones that aren't corrupt are inept!
I must have missed that part when I read (and re-read) the Return of the King. What was their relationship? (Denethor, if I recall correctly, was the Steward of Gondor, right?)
<shatneresque> Get ... a ... life !!! </shatneresque>
Sorry to get onto an off-topic religious rant, but may I remind the original poster that "Sic et fides, si opera non habuerit, mortua est per se" (James 2:17). And personally, I'd rather worship God in deed and attitude, you know, actually go an help someone instead of spouting empty sophistry to the needy. But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Dude, that boat looks bad ass. Even without the guns.
If I recall correctly, it is Israeli intelligence which uses torture to get information. Cf. http://www.free-market.net/forums/main0203b/messag es/838491397.html, http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200105/ br_asmar1.htm, http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde15.h tm.
Since we're in the realm of theory, why not build a CCD camera the size of a computer screen? Proper alignment would be a bitch (or not, with modern flat-panel displays), not to mention recompressing the old video, artifacts and all, but it would be a bit-for-bit reconstruction of the original image.
Another alternative would be to use one of the many TEMPEST-like screen reconstruction techniques, e.g. Van Eck phreaking or sampling the flashes made by the electron gun.
Oops, I guess I just described several circumvision devices. Guess that's illegal, currently...
Presidents since Jackson replaced the encumbent bureaucrats with their supporters and favorites, and it's not like Bush is acting any different than any other Democrat or Republican president. As far as I'm concerned, such politicians are all scum. They obviously don't have the best interests of the nation in mind. Instead, they prefer to cater to whatever block of voters got them into power. The irony is that we are the ones who confirm this by actually voting them in!
That's an easy one. It's an early remedy for balding!
I try to learn as many programming languages as possible. While programming languages such as FORTRAN, Common Lisp, and even COBOL are indeed very old, there are many implementations both commercial and non-commercial being actively maintained and used. Even if I find that the language doesn't provide the tools I need, as is the case with FORTRAN and COBOL, the process of exercising my mind through learning has made me a better computer scientist.
I'm also a happy Road Runner Commercial Services (RRCS) customer, though I am pretty small (a hobbyist). "Real" companies use T1's for more than just data. In fact, a T1 is sometimes implemented to save money on long distance calls, with inter-office data (or Internet connectivity) as an afterthought. In this regards, RRCS doesn't really compete.
IIRC, the X-Wing crack is easier than that. I remember inputting ASCII NULs to replace the strings, allowing one to just hit Enter to bypass the copy protection. But I've slept since then and may be recalling a different game.
I must say that about the only thing that makes me feel really elite is cracking software, even if it's just patching a list of strings somewhere. Isn't that sad?
Just so no one else has to navigate their crappy JavaScript web site, here are direct links to the Real Audio streams: high quality and enhanced quality.
Hm, didn't notice the text-only mode link before I started wading through all that HTML. But it doesn't seem to have links to the Real Audio files, either, so there you go.
Changing your MAC or using unsolicited ARP broadcasts to take over another IP address are exactly what IP spoofing is all about. It's more than just setting a new MAC through ifconfig or Device Manager, too. Usually, you're doing some kind of ARP poison routing to do man-in-the-middle attacks or sniffing.
So it really is spoofing, as such.
There's several ways to go about this.
- Buy CheckPoint FireWall-1 in addition to your access points. There are SOHO versions of FW1 on dedicated hardware (e.g. Nokia IP71) that retail for less than $1000 and can accomodate up to 50 users. Use its Session Authentication agent to arbitrate access to anything other than DHCP and don't bother with enabling WEP. Unfortunately, the agent seems to be only available for Windows 9X/ME/NT/2K/XP.
- Buy Cisco access points and Cisco ACS software and enable LEAP. While non-standard, you are probably forcing them to buy a wireless card anyway, and Cisco's client devices aren't all that expensive. The Aironet device is supported in Windows and Windows CE, Linux, and MacOS 9.x and 10.x. My employer uses LEAP and it works great.
- Hack your own. Set up Linux and Squid and Apache and transparent forwarding to redirect unauthenticated web traffic to a HTTPS login form. Have the form automatically add the necessary firewall rules to allow them out, and have a cron job remove them after a delay. Upside: A five banana problem once you've mirrored enough of CPAN to write the Perl scripts. Downside: Easily spoofed/hacked with a copy of AirSnort, Kismet, and Ettercap.
WEP key management sucks so hard that relying on it is stupid. I'd probably go the LEAP route just because it is so damn easy on both the client side and on the server side, even though I hate Cisco. The build-it-yourself solution would be a complete kludge and would be totally unsupportable except by the author, i.e. lots of work. The CheckPoint firewall is in between the Cisco (easy) and do-it-yourself (really hard) in terms of difficulty.Anyway, I'm rambling now, so hopefully this helps and makes sense. If you have questions, post 'em here.
Quoth phunhippy:
You must have missed the recent article in American Scientist on conflict. Statisticians seem to think that conflicts occur randomly, that "the data offer no reason to believe that wars are anything other than randomly distributed accidents." Here, "wars" include any deadly conflict down to the individual level (e.g. murder). With or without religion, we are a murderous race. If it isn't religion we're fighting about, it's about trade, or it's about skin color, or it's about the country from which your great-grandparents emigrated, or it's about how much of a certain resource you have, et cetera ad nauseum. Heck, some days, it's just becuase somebody is being an asshole and is getting in someone else's way.
I think, regardless what the philosophers or scientists say, that we are a bunch of primitive animals that are barely civilized enough to bathe on a semi-frequent basis (and that only recently). In that context, killing each other or our own spawn is merely "human nature," regardless of our justifications (like "oh, but he was going to kill me" or "fight to preserve our freedom" or "it's my body").
That's actually a pretty good idea that at least one other author worked into his stories. In Dan Simmons' Hyperion novels, all humans have neural implants allowing them to access computational and communication resources directly, and it turns out that the A.I.'s "live" in the unused storage capacity of the human minds that are networked in. It is chilling, to say the least, as the A.I.'s want to remove any autonomy from the humans, and in fact, the A.I.'s destroy Earth and do lots of other Really Bad Things before the Forces of Good show up to kick some ass.
And one of these days I'll have to finish reading the series! :)
It's a good thing, too, that computers can't speak. Sure, it would be nice to command a computer to "search google for anime pr0n", but most likely the first thing you'd hear back is some 30-second ad along the lines of "Web search brought to you by Pr0n Magazine". The day computers need a commercial skip button is the day I'm giving it all up and becoming a monk. I think I'll stick to not looking at anything other than the search hits, thank you very much. (Of course, if you don't look at web ads you're STEALING from the Internet!)