The first step is the router comparing the request with a "suspect" ip list. If it finds a match it redirects to the proxy server. This is very different than a modified dns entry where all traffic to a domain would be routed to the proxy. For example www.company.com/childporn.html may be in the "suspect" list and routed to the proxy but www.company.com/art.html may not be in that list so will not be re-routed.
I can't imagine that the routers analyze the HTTP requests.
That is exactly what happens as the router compares the request with the "suspect" list.
How effective will it really be? Maybe only 5% with the ability of an equal percentage being attempts to frame by leaving someone else's brass around. How much time will be lost following false leads due to partial numbers? What percentage of guns owned by criminals will still have the numbers on them? I would bet that number approaches zero. The sarcasm of the "oh it is less than 100% effective" is stupid because 0%is also less than 100% and a very good reason for not doing something.
Millions of guns are in the hands of people who would be arrested if they had guns. The problem is that there is almost no way of knowing is someone has a gun unless you are willing to randomly search everyone and everything. US law does not allow such random searches.
Here is where semantics come in Edison did not invent the "light bulb" he invented the "first commercially viable incandescent light bulb". The term "light bulb" is much too broad to describe what Edison did while "first commercially viable incandescent bulb" is much more accurate. The issue comes in when people write about Edison and find that the longer, more accurate, term is too cumbersome and opt for the shorter, less accurate, term. It would be the same if Ford was credited with inventing "manufacturing" when he actually invented the "assembly line form of manufacturing". It is also debatable whether Edison invented the "first commercially viable incandescent light bulb" himself or did he assign William Joseph Hamme to try every possible material till one that worked was found. Edison himself credits William Joseph Hammer as "a pioneer of incandescent electric lighting". Edison's name is on many patents but that does not mean that he was the driving force behind them.
I guess you have had contact with some pretty poor troubleshooters. A good troubleshooter would so a quick analysis to see if pen and paper was an acceptable option. If it was not he would resort to a hack such as you suggest. He may also spend the few minutes to quickly analyse if the hack will do more damage than good.
As another poster suggests the "quick and dirty workaround" may expose the network to intrusion and if it is a secure network, like a medical data system, could expose the company to thousands of dollars in fines.
My first question would be what is a non-redundant fiber interface doing at such a critical link? To me that is poor system design.
To a programmer, “hacker” simply means a great programmer.
I have been programming for over 20 years and my definition of a hacker is some one who writes quick and very dirty code to fix a specific issue for a short period of time. In my experience hackers have a tendency to leave behind fragile, undocumented code that may or may not work in the future. Some hacks stand up over time but most fall down when run long enough. All hacks need to be eventually documented, tested and approved before they become permanent parts of the code base. The worst thing that can happen is to come across a hack a year later and no one know what it does or why it is there. In my experience most hacks need to be replaced as soon as possible.
If there had not been a server, there would not be a HTTP status code. Rather there would be a TCP error, "Host unreachable"
You seem to think that if it is a server error a server must have sent it. That is the whole point of the discussion. This censorship is being implemented in routers that are sending back server errors. I agree that it should be a "host unreachable" error with code 13 "Communication administratively prohibited (administrative filtering prevents packet from being forwarded).". That is the most accurate error available.
Perhaps a better method would be to use ICMP Type=3, code=13: "Communication administratively prohibited (administrative filtering prevents packet from being forwarded)." It is a routing error that is independent of request and server.
504 is not accurate because the request was never sent to the upstream server therefore no "timely response" was expected. Squid is software running on a proxy server. The 504 is an error sent by the Squid server when it tried to get data from an upstream server.. The issue is that the error the censored request is getting is more of a router error and not a server error..
5xx are error codes returned by the server servicing the request. Since there was no server hit, the request was blocked before getting there, no 5xx codes fit.
The real issue is that there are no valid HTTP codes for the net intermediaries to return. Both 4xx and 5xx codes are returned by the server but, since the server was never hit, neither are exactly valid.
Any choice of existing error codes would have brought up exactly the same debate. There may need to be a new grouping for network errors.
502 dies not fit either because the description is "This server received an invalid response from an upstream server it accessed to fulfil the request.". The server was never hit so invalid response was received.
I think you need to look up the definition of "wicked-heavy". 450 pounds is not very heavy at all considering that if an f-15e had enough hard points it could carry 50 of them. The drone is a spotter not a.bomber. Most of that payload will be sensors.
The difference is that jet fuel spills while super critical hydrogen instantly transforms into a huge volume of explosive gas. Even without an ignition source the escaping gas can cause massive damage. Add those together and one gets a huge explosion.
As a result of demographic and economic development pressures, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia will face major challenges coping with water problems.
That is exactly what I said; water will not be an issue in the entire Western Hemisphere and much of the Eastern as well. Those areas listed make up only a small part of the world and water supply is not a world issue.
Filtering dirty water to make it useful for crops or washing your car is easy. Filtering it (cheaply) to make it drinkable is much harder. Desalinating it, as this does, is more difficult still, and usually very energy intensive.
Do you notice that most of those places are very sunny and solar power is abundant? It will cost money to build and maintain these plants but it is still less than full scale war. On the other hand, perhaps people should move to places where there is water.
and most military expos are not about selling protection to democracies.
Care to cite any studies on that? Buyers from democratic and non-democratic nations around the world attend these expos. Whether the nation is democratic or not they still need defense What I am trying to say is it how the weapons are used that is the issue..
selling land mines has no legitimate military purpose. we still do it.
There are at least three countries that would not exist without land mines; South Korea, Taiwan and Israel. Land mines have the legitimate purpose of enabling a smaller force to defend against a larger force. Used properly land mines are an asset. Used improperly as in South East Asia, they spell doom. As with anything, it is not the item but how it is used.
selling weapons to dictators has no legitimate diplomatic purpose,
Almost correct, except that weapons can be used by one dictator to defend against another countries(by the way there are several absolute monarchies in the world that some call dictatorships). You also forget that some times democracies even start wars.
It is funny how people think that all military forces are bad. While it would be nice if there was absolutely no military forces in the world but that will never happen. It is human nature to want something someone else has and to want to protect what one has (which can soon morph into we have these forces and they have what we want). In every conflict there is at least one aggressor and at least one defender. In general I side with the defenders; taking land by force is wrong. In my mind the defending force are the good guys. They too need armaments and ammunition which is why I see not issues with military expos.
Whether or not a military force is a good or bad this is a moot point. It is how the people, through their elected officials, use their military forces on other countries that matters. As examples: North Korea, pretty bad; Canada damn good.
Until rain becomes contaminated this is not going to be a world wide issue. There are a few places that are having issues with potable water such as the Nile and the Ganges but most of the world will not have that issue. With solar energy and contaminated water portable water is one step away.
It has one definite advantage; it allows forces that could not normally live off the land to occupy areas without good drinking water. Drinkable water facilitates the movement of troops. If troops can not go there they can not hold ground. I am not saying that military forces are a bad thing but that creating drinking water for military forces is very similar to the the creation of military rations; they both have military application.
You have hit the mail on the head. Reverse osmosis membranes can be easily cleaned by reversing the pressure so that a small amount of fresh water will flush the built up salt. There is no such mechanism with fuel cells. When natural gas is used the impurities coat the reaction plate and decrease the reaction. There is no way to reverse the process to clean the plates. It is very difficult to create perfectly clean natural gas. Even a small amount of impurities will coat the plates creating an insulation layer. The cleaner the gas the longer it takes but since it is impracticable to create perfectly clean natural gas it is only a matter of time before the plates are coated.
There are many tools that can be use to open clam shell packages; knives, scissors, saw , specialty hand tools, specialty electrical tools, etc. So when you buy a pair of scissors in a clam shell you may need to find a knife to open them.
The main point is that patience and care are needed to open the package safely. I have seen people hack at packages with knives and that causes the blade to slip and cause injury. I have never injured myself opening a sealed clamshell; I am careful.
Slashdot Mirror
The first step is the router comparing the request with a "suspect" ip list. If it finds a match it redirects to the proxy server. This is very different than a modified dns entry where all traffic to a domain would be routed to the proxy. For example www.company.com/childporn.html may be in the "suspect" list and routed to the proxy but www.company.com/art.html may not be in that list so will not be re-routed.
I can't imagine that the routers analyze the HTTP requests.
That is exactly what happens as the router compares the request with the "suspect" list.
How effective will it really be? Maybe only 5% with the ability of an equal percentage being attempts to frame by leaving someone else's brass around. How much time will be lost following false leads due to partial numbers? What percentage of guns owned by criminals will still have the numbers on them? I would bet that number approaches zero.
The sarcasm of the "oh it is less than 100% effective" is stupid because 0%is also less than 100% and a very good reason for not doing something.
this one
These
Millions of guns are in the hands of people who would be arrested if they had guns. The problem is that there is almost no way of knowing is someone has a gun unless you are willing to randomly search everyone and everything. US law does not allow such random searches.
I just pick up brass at the police range and reload it when I murder people.
Skip the re-loading, just pick up your brass and scatter the police range brass around then watch all hell break loose when they try to explain that.
On a more realistic note, one could plant other people's brass to frame someone else for a crime.
Cleanfeed
He still invented the light bulb, dammit!
Here is where semantics come in Edison did not invent the "light bulb" he invented the "first commercially viable incandescent light bulb". The term "light bulb" is much too broad to describe what Edison did while "first commercially viable incandescent bulb" is much more accurate. The issue comes in when people write about Edison and find that the longer, more accurate, term is too cumbersome and opt for the shorter, less accurate, term. It would be the same if Ford was credited with inventing "manufacturing" when he actually invented the "assembly line form of manufacturing".
It is also debatable whether Edison invented the "first commercially viable incandescent light bulb" himself or did he assign William Joseph Hamme to try every possible material till one that worked was found. Edison himself credits William Joseph Hammer as "a pioneer of incandescent electric lighting". Edison's name is on many patents but that does not mean that he was the driving force behind them.
I guess you have had contact with some pretty poor troubleshooters. A good troubleshooter would so a quick analysis to see if pen and paper was an acceptable option. If it was not he would resort to a hack such as you suggest. He may also spend the few minutes to quickly analyse if the hack will do more damage than good.
As another poster suggests the "quick and dirty workaround" may expose the network to intrusion and if it is a secure network, like a medical data system, could expose the company to thousands of dollars in fines.
My first question would be what is a non-redundant fiber interface doing at such a critical link? To me that is poor system design.
To a programmer, “hacker” simply means a great programmer.
I have been programming for over 20 years and my definition of a hacker is some one who writes quick and very dirty code to fix a specific issue for a short period of time. In my experience hackers have a tendency to leave behind fragile, undocumented code that may or may not work in the future. Some hacks stand up over time but most fall down when run long enough. All hacks need to be eventually documented, tested and approved before they become permanent parts of the code base. The worst thing that can happen is to come across a hack a year later and no one know what it does or why it is there. In my experience most hacks need to be replaced as soon as possible.
If there had not been a server, there would not be a HTTP status code. Rather there would be a TCP error, "Host unreachable"
You seem to think that if it is a server error a server must have sent it. That is the whole point of the discussion. This censorship is being implemented in routers that are sending back server errors. I agree that it should be a "host unreachable" error with code 13 "Communication administratively prohibited (administrative filtering prevents packet from being forwarded).". That is the most accurate error available.
Perhaps a better method would be to use ICMP Type=3, code=13: "Communication administratively prohibited (administrative filtering prevents packet from being forwarded)." It is a routing error that is independent of request and server.
504 is not accurate because the request was never sent to the upstream server therefore no "timely response" was expected.
Squid is software running on a proxy server. The 504 is an error sent by the Squid server when it tried to get data from an upstream server.. The issue is that the error the censored request is getting is more of a router error and not a server error..
5xx are error codes returned by the server servicing the request. Since there was no server hit, the request was blocked before getting there, no 5xx codes fit.
The real issue is that there are no valid HTTP codes for the net intermediaries to return. Both 4xx and 5xx codes are returned by the server but, since the server was never hit, neither are exactly valid.
Any choice of existing error codes would have brought up exactly the same debate. There may need to be a new grouping for network errors.
502 dies not fit either because the description is "This server received an invalid response from an upstream server it accessed to fulfil the request.". The server was never hit so invalid response was received.
I think you need to look up the definition of "wicked-heavy". 450 pounds is not very heavy at all considering that if an f-15e had enough hard points it could carry 50 of them. The drone is a spotter not a .bomber. Most of that payload will be sensors.
The difference is that jet fuel spills while super critical hydrogen instantly transforms into a huge volume of explosive gas. Even without an ignition source the escaping gas can cause massive damage. Add those together and one gets a huge explosion.
Which is why under enough pressure it becomes a super critical liquid.
Then perhaps immigration rules are the issue.
As a result of demographic and economic development pressures, North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia will face major challenges coping with water problems.
That is exactly what I said; water will not be an issue in the entire Western Hemisphere and much of the Eastern as well. Those areas listed make up only a small part of the world and water supply is not a world issue.
Filtering dirty water to make it useful for crops or washing your car is easy. Filtering it (cheaply) to make it drinkable is much harder. Desalinating it, as this does, is more difficult still, and usually very energy intensive.
Do you notice that most of those places are very sunny and solar power is abundant? It will cost money to build and maintain these plants but it is still less than full scale war. On the other hand, perhaps people should move to places where there is water.
and most military expos are not about selling protection to democracies.
Care to cite any studies on that? Buyers from democratic and non-democratic nations around the world attend these expos. Whether the nation is democratic or not they still need defense What I am trying to say is it how the weapons are used that is the issue..
selling land mines has no legitimate military purpose. we still do it.
There are at least three countries that would not exist without land mines; South Korea, Taiwan and Israel. Land mines have the legitimate purpose of enabling a smaller force to defend against a larger force. Used properly land mines are an asset. Used improperly as in South East Asia, they spell doom. As with anything, it is not the item but how it is used.
selling weapons to dictators has no legitimate diplomatic purpose,
Almost correct, except that weapons can be used by one dictator to defend against another countries(by the way there are several absolute monarchies in the world that some call dictatorships). You also forget that some times democracies even start wars.
It is funny how people think that all military forces are bad. While it would be nice if there was absolutely no military forces in the world but that will never happen. It is human nature to want something someone else has and to want to protect what one has (which can soon morph into we have these forces and they have what we want). In every conflict there is at least one aggressor and at least one defender. In general I side with the defenders; taking land by force is wrong. In my mind the defending force are the good guys. They too need armaments and ammunition which is why I see not issues with military expos.
Whether or not a military force is a good or bad this is a moot point. It is how the people, through their elected officials, use their military forces on other countries that matters. As examples: North Korea, pretty bad; Canada damn good.
Until rain becomes contaminated this is not going to be a world wide issue. There are a few places that are having issues with potable water such as the Nile and the Ganges but most of the world will not have that issue. With solar energy and contaminated water portable water is one step away.
It has one definite advantage; it allows forces that could not normally live off the land to occupy areas without good drinking water. Drinkable water facilitates the movement of troops. If troops can not go there they can not hold ground. I am not saying that military forces are a bad thing but that creating drinking water for military forces is very similar to the the creation of military rations; they both have military application.
You have hit the mail on the head. Reverse osmosis membranes can be easily cleaned by reversing the pressure so that a small amount of fresh water will flush the built up salt. There is no such mechanism with fuel cells. When natural gas is used the impurities coat the reaction plate and decrease the reaction. There is no way to reverse the process to clean the plates. It is very difficult to create perfectly clean natural gas. Even a small amount of impurities will coat the plates creating an insulation layer. The cleaner the gas the longer it takes but since it is impracticable to create perfectly clean natural gas it is only a matter of time before the plates are coated.
There are many tools that can be use to open clam shell packages; knives, scissors, saw , specialty hand tools, specialty electrical tools, etc. So when you buy a pair of scissors in a clam shell you may need to find a knife to open them.
The main point is that patience and care are needed to open the package safely. I have seen people hack at packages with knives and that causes the blade to slip and cause injury. I have never injured myself opening a sealed clamshell; I am careful.