Oh the irony...
Quote One: They'll pay $13/month for a "service" that is just letting them use hardware they already bought.
Quote Two: I actually don't have cable now and do all my tv watching on DVDs rented from netflix.
Netflix users are suckers (see your own logic above)
Qutoe Three: If something like Apples service ever comes along but has decent quality downloads for $2/episode without commercials and available before or at the same time as the broadcast, I'd be happy.
I've got a service you might check into. It is a flat fee (no $2 an episode) and just a slight delay after the original air date. No commercials, good quality, don't even need a PC connected to your TV, plus you get free downloads of other programs you might like in the background. Tivo + Cable.
If I were going to do a train set web UI, I would hope to make something at least as interesting and entertaining as this one. Its fun to control, easy to watch, and no.Net; just php.
For the first time ever: 100% reliability in combating spam. Guaranteed.
But from the first point on the TOS page:
(1) Warranties and waivers. You understand that there are no guarantees, either expressed or implied, regarding the accuracy, confidentiality or availability of the service.
1) Are you protecting your country from being harmed? 2) Have you tried other ways to resolve the conflict? 3) Have you formally declared war? 4) Is the goal to return to peace? 5) No scorched earth tactic - don't attack civilians, don't attack infrastructure. 6) Use only vocationed military - no civilian contractors or mobs of common people.
Given the idea that war is ever justifiable, the criteria to which you seem to be referring would appear IMHO to mostly justify this one.
Comments in italics are from the second link searching for 'just war' on Google (which must therefore be authoritative): # A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
Consider 10 years of refusal to comply with the terms of a treaty with the U.N., which was doing all it could to avoid futher conflict.
# A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
This is the main reason George W's father was against the war.
# A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
Again, if nothing else, Saddam was violating the terms of an established treaty, which has historically been cause to redeclare war (if it isn't, how are we to enforce treatys?). Also, it must be considered that there _was_ a link between the Iraqi administration and Al-Queida, even if it had nothing to do with 9/11. (Try googling before flaming, and look at only hard news, not propaganda)
# A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
That one's obvious
# The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
This seems to be the goal...
# The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
There wasn't that much injury suffered, but we didn't drop a nuclear bomb on them either. This is subjective, but as wars go, this has been a relatively bloodless one. Regardless of how many times this war is compared to Vietnam, there haven't been nearly the number of deaths for either side. I can easily point out many wars that are currently going on that have caused more death than this one
# The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Civilians have never been an approved target in this war. There have been many cases of collateral damage, but I would submit that this is much more common coming from the Iraqi attacks than America's.
I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I am simply stating fact. However, if you look at the characteristics of the worm and the way Windows 2000 networks operate, you will see that the two most vulnerable ports in Windows are the exact ones that a server uses to communicate with client machines. Ports 139 and 445 are required for network communication to a client machine (actually either/or). Without those ports open to clients, there can be no file sharing, drive mapping, etc.
Basically what you are suggesting is that we make our network non-functional.
Right, but if you take a look at some of the newsgroups (like microsoft.public.windows.help_and_support) you'll find that many people were having this issue and no antivirus tool could find the worm. Also, none of the files that the worm was known to drop existed on these systems, and the registry entries it was known to create were not there. It wasn't common, so nobody really has an answer for it, but there were several machines that, like mine, were fully patched and showed no other signs of infection apart from lsass crashes and reboots.
There probably weren't enough of us to get any attention, so we were all just left wondering. Let me reiterate, though, that Microsoft either released a new patch for this or Windows Update didn't patch the machines properly, because all of the machines showed that one update as the only one they needed to install. AND we know that they were patched up previously.
About the patch being released 21 days ago:
Our machines were all patched up as of Wednesday and still got screwed by this worm. Microsoft released a new patch after that and we all apparently needed it to stop the servers rebooting. They weren't getting infected, but they were effectively DOSed until they were patched Saturday.
Before I get derided about not having them behind a firewall, they were getting hit by users who were behind our shields.
Security by obscurity is not secure by itself. Combined with real security, it is simply another layer.
I'm not saying that "port knocking" is any kind of real solution at all, in fact I'm inclined to believe otherwise. It's just that it bugs me when people react so automatically to the idea of obscuring a secure service. Think of it this way:
What if that key under a rock is not the key to the house, but is the key to the lock that covers the lock to the house. Now even if someone holds you up with a gun and takes your keys from you, they can't open the door without knowing where the other key is.
Sure, obscurity is trivial to break, but its a layer, and that's all. Obscuring a secure service makes it take a little bit longer to break, and sometimes runs off $Cr1pt KiDDIE5. And sometimes that's enough to justify the little bit of extra work.
The British devote proper resources to it, only let the best of the best fly it and hence have a much better safety record with the aircraft.
This is simply not true. In fact, in the other part of the article I linked, you will see that the British record is actually worse than the American record.
Re:Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
All good points, and all understood. But, that doesn't mention whether the other planes with much better safety records get the same treatment pilot/maintenance wise. I understand that the Harrier is difficult to fly and maintain, but don't those make up some of its primary faults?
Should anything in an aircraft be harder or more dangerous to do than landing an F/A-18 Hornet on a moving aircraft carrier? The Harrier has more than 3 times the accident rate of those Hornets.
Saying that we shouldn't expect the Harriers to fly for years without a "single hitch" seems to be stretching it a little bit, don't you think? We're not talking about minor hiccups here, we're talking about major accidents. (By the way, my latest PC is made up almost entirely of "spare parts" and it runs quite well, thank you) According to three different people in my family who have worked in separate generations in aircraft maintenance in the Air Force and Navy, if there is a problem that could put the pilot in danger, that airplane is grounded immediately. This is, of course, at the maintenance level, political maneuvering in the higher ranks notwithstanding.
Aside from that, there will always be problems with any airplane due to budget, training and parts availability, but those alone did not give the Harrier the worst record in the US armed forces. Once again, let me point out that even in Britain, where as you say the pilots and maintenance people are more experienced in the aircraft, the crash record is higher than the ones in service in the US.
(b) my thinking that eventually they'll scale up the ornithopters to passenger-capability seems to be universally considered a dumb idea
Opponents of any idea as untested as this are just being closed-minded. Plenty of really intelligent people thought that the idea that you could get much energy out of splitting an atom was dumb.
(c) I really don't understand the different branches of the US military
I wouldn't worry too much about that. It took trying to explain those branches to a Chinese friend to show me how difficult and sometimes arbitrary those distinctions are.
Re:Assumption is the mother of all f**k-ups...
on
Studies In Ornithopters
·
· Score: 4, Informative
OK, how bout next time you do your research, too. A quick google search turned up this story from the LA Times (mirror here)
Quote from the story:
The lifetime accident rate for the Marines' AV-8B is 11.44 per 100,000 hours of flight, well over the combined rates for other attack and fighter planes flown during those years by the Marines, the Navy and the Air Force.
And before you go off about untrained or unskilled American pilots again, check the author's Q&A here, where he points out this:
The AV-8B had 12 major accidents per 100,000 hours flown during the decade. The three similar Harrier models flown by the Royal Air Force during that time had accident rates ranging from 12 to 19 when the U.S military standard is applied.
and this:
Because there are fewer Harriers in Great Britain, and they fly fewer hours, they've had fewer crashes and fatalities.
The Harrier is not a safe aircraft. The RAF knows it, that is why they are part of the Joint Strike Fighter program. That program aims to create a VTOL aircraft without the problems of the Harrier.
OK, I am not sure why everyone seems to be falling for this, but it looks to me to be very fake. The page doesn't even look official. For one thing, the DOJ probably wouldn't steal the old ISONews logo and put it at the top of the page. They also probably have a better copy of their own logo than the crappy clip-art one at the top as well. (Although, maybe not if you take cybercrime.gov as any indication)
Another good thing to notice would be that there don't seem to be any specific laws or statutes mentioned. It's pretty standard practice to cite those when you can recite them in your sleep like the guys at the DOJ.
Seems much more likely that someone just hijacked the domain or hax0red the server to me.
My experience is the exact opposite... the LEC here (and I would assume most places) has oversold bandwidth in the extreme by supporting low-priced home DSL over the same links as their business T1 traffic. The result is that T1's get the same 'oversold' ratio as home DSL. Looking at the profit margin (about $20 per line) of that DSL, there is no way to buy appropriate bandwidth to support all of that traffic.
Also, they are sending almost all of the traffic from this state to a neighboring state before hitting their backbone provider. About one day out of every couple of months that link goes down and causes everyone here downtime. They also only have one backbone provider, which happens to be UUNet(Worldcom, DUH).
The final result is that even their T1 users get a DSL quality of service, which is what I think can be expected of a home provider. As more LEC's move to that business model, it seems more would go that direction
If there was a decent choice of domain name suffixes, this kind of thing would not be needed. All of the new suffixes that were of any use were not approved, and now companies are exploiting this fact to make money.
Why not have a domain especially for television stations, auction sites, brick and mortar stores, and xxx sites? Finding what we want (and avoiding what we don't) would be tons easier, and there wouldn't have to be monopolies on small countries' domain names to make it possible.
I mean, good grief, if Karl Marx wasn't already spinning like a gyroscope in his grave over running 'the people' over with tanks and the like, he would have to going nuts over the general downfall of genius-communism exhibited by the Chinese government here. The U.S. spys on everybody, including friends, so how did they think they would send an airplane back to the U.S. and not have the CIA get their hands on it?
From Lenin to Jiang Zemin is obviously not progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh the irony...
Quote One: They'll pay $13/month for a "service" that is just letting them use hardware they already bought.
Quote Two: I actually don't have cable now and do all my tv watching on DVDs rented from netflix.
Netflix users are suckers (see your own logic above)
Qutoe Three: If something like Apples service ever comes along but has decent quality downloads for $2/episode without commercials and available before or at the same time as the broadcast, I'd be happy.
I've got a service you might check into. It is a flat fee (no $2 an episode) and just a slight delay after the original air date. No commercials, good quality, don't even need a PC connected to your TV, plus you get free downloads of other programs you might like in the background. Tivo + Cable.
Thanks. I tested that link about 5 times. Somewhere deep down I knew I still shouldn't trust it.
If I were going to do a train set web UI, I would hope to make something at least as interesting and entertaining as this one. Its fun to control, easy to watch, and no .Net; just php.
1) Are you protecting your country from being harmed?
2) Have you tried other ways to resolve the conflict?
3) Have you formally declared war?
4) Is the goal to return to peace?
5) No scorched earth tactic - don't attack civilians, don't attack infrastructure.
6) Use only vocationed military - no civilian contractors or mobs of common people.
Given the idea that war is ever justifiable, the criteria to which you seem to be referring would appear IMHO to mostly justify this one.
Comments in italics are from the second link searching for 'just war' on Google (which must therefore be authoritative):
# A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
Consider 10 years of refusal to comply with the terms of a treaty with the U.N., which was doing all it could to avoid futher conflict.
# A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
This is the main reason George W's father was against the war.
# A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
Again, if nothing else, Saddam was violating the terms of an established treaty, which has historically been cause to redeclare war (if it isn't, how are we to enforce treatys?). Also, it must be considered that there _was_ a link between the Iraqi administration and Al-Queida, even if it had nothing to do with 9/11. (Try googling before flaming, and look at only hard news, not propaganda)
# A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
That one's obvious
# The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
This seems to be the goal...
# The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
There wasn't that much injury suffered, but we didn't drop a nuclear bomb on them either. This is subjective, but as wars go, this has been a relatively bloodless one. Regardless of how many times this war is compared to Vietnam, there haven't been nearly the number of deaths for either side. I can easily point out many wars that are currently going on that have caused more death than this one
# The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
Civilians have never been an approved target in this war. There have been many cases of collateral damage, but I would submit that this is much more common coming from the Iraqi attacks than America's.
I'm not blaming anyone for anything, I am simply stating fact. However, if you look at the characteristics of the worm and the way Windows 2000 networks operate, you will see that the two most vulnerable ports in Windows are the exact ones that a server uses to communicate with client machines. Ports 139 and 445 are required for network communication to a client machine (actually either/or). Without those ports open to clients, there can be no file sharing, drive mapping, etc.
Basically what you are suggesting is that we make our network non-functional.
Right, but if you take a look at some of the newsgroups (like microsoft.public.windows.help_and_support) you'll find that many people were having this issue and no antivirus tool could find the worm. Also, none of the files that the worm was known to drop existed on these systems, and the registry entries it was known to create were not there. It wasn't common, so nobody really has an answer for it, but there were several machines that, like mine, were fully patched and showed no other signs of infection apart from lsass crashes and reboots.
There probably weren't enough of us to get any attention, so we were all just left wondering. Let me reiterate, though, that Microsoft either released a new patch for this or Windows Update didn't patch the machines properly, because all of the machines showed that one update as the only one they needed to install. AND we know that they were patched up previously.
About the patch being released 21 days ago:
Our machines were all patched up as of Wednesday and still got screwed by this worm. Microsoft released a new patch after that and we all apparently needed it to stop the servers rebooting. They weren't getting infected, but they were effectively DOSed until they were patched Saturday.
Before I get derided about not having them behind a firewall, they were getting hit by users who were behind our shields.
Security by obscurity is not secure by itself. Combined with real security, it is simply another layer.
I'm not saying that "port knocking" is any kind of real solution at all, in fact I'm inclined to believe otherwise. It's just that it bugs me when people react so automatically to the idea of obscuring a secure service. Think of it this way:
What if that key under a rock is not the key to the house, but is the key to the lock that covers the lock to the house. Now even if someone holds you up with a gun and takes your keys from you, they can't open the door without knowing where the other key is.
Sure, obscurity is trivial to break, but its a layer, and that's all. Obscuring a secure service makes it take a little bit longer to break, and sometimes runs off $Cr1pt KiDDIE5. And sometimes that's enough to justify the little bit of extra work.
This is simply not true. In fact, in the other part of the article I linked, you will see that the British record is actually worse than the American record.
All good points, and all understood. But, that doesn't mention whether the other planes with much better safety records get the same treatment pilot/maintenance wise. I understand that the Harrier is difficult to fly and maintain, but don't those make up some of its primary faults?
Should anything in an aircraft be harder or more dangerous to do than landing an F/A-18 Hornet on a moving aircraft carrier? The Harrier has more than 3 times the accident rate of those Hornets.
Saying that we shouldn't expect the Harriers to fly for years without a "single hitch" seems to be stretching it a little bit, don't you think? We're not talking about minor hiccups here, we're talking about major accidents. (By the way, my latest PC is made up almost entirely of "spare parts" and it runs quite well, thank you) According to three different people in my family who have worked in separate generations in aircraft maintenance in the Air Force and Navy, if there is a problem that could put the pilot in danger, that airplane is grounded immediately. This is, of course, at the maintenance level, political maneuvering in the higher ranks notwithstanding.
Aside from that, there will always be problems with any airplane due to budget, training and parts availability, but those alone did not give the Harrier the worst record in the US armed forces. Once again, let me point out that even in Britain, where as you say the pilots and maintenance people are more experienced in the aircraft, the crash record is higher than the ones in service in the US.
(b) my thinking that eventually they'll scale up the ornithopters to passenger-capability seems to be universally considered a dumb idea
Opponents of any idea as untested as this are just being closed-minded. Plenty of really intelligent people thought that the idea that you could get much energy out of splitting an atom was dumb.
(c) I really don't understand the different branches of the US military
I wouldn't worry too much about that. It took trying to explain those branches to a Chinese friend to show me how difficult and sometimes arbitrary those distinctions are.
Take a look at my comment above. Part of it is directed to you. You're just flat wrong in every area.
lol. Beat you to it by two minutes :)
OK, how bout next time you do your research, too. A quick google search turned up this story from the LA Times (mirror here)
Quote from the story:
And before you go off about untrained or unskilled American pilots again, check the author's Q&A here, where he points out this: and this:The Harrier is not a safe aircraft. The RAF knows it, that is why they are part of the Joint Strike Fighter program. That program aims to create a VTOL aircraft without the problems of the Harrier.
OK, I am not sure why everyone seems to be falling for this, but it looks to me to be very fake. The page doesn't even look official. For one thing, the DOJ probably wouldn't steal the old ISONews logo and put it at the top of the page. They also probably have a better copy of their own logo than the crappy clip-art one at the top as well. (Although, maybe not if you take cybercrime.gov as any indication)
Another good thing to notice would be that there don't seem to be any specific laws or statutes mentioned. It's pretty standard practice to cite those when you can recite them in your sleep like the guys at the DOJ.
Seems much more likely that someone just hijacked the domain or hax0red the server to me.
My experience is the exact opposite... the LEC here (and I would assume most places) has oversold bandwidth in the extreme by supporting low-priced home DSL over the same links as their business T1 traffic. The result is that T1's get the same 'oversold' ratio as home DSL. Looking at the profit margin (about $20 per line) of that DSL, there is no way to buy appropriate bandwidth to support all of that traffic.
Also, they are sending almost all of the traffic from this state to a neighboring state before hitting their backbone provider. About one day out of every couple of months that link goes down and causes everyone here downtime. They also only have one backbone provider, which happens to be UUNet(Worldcom, DUH).
The final result is that even their T1 users get a DSL quality of service, which is what I think can be expected of a home provider. As more LEC's move to that business model, it seems more would go that direction
It's a VERY interesting read and a very interesting predition
Shoudn't that be prediction?
Hey, I'm just trying to improve the quality of the services we are being asked to buy.
When I went to this article, I got a flashing red banner ad with the words "COPY DVD'S!!!!" in big white letters.
Now that's what I call targeted advertising. Did anybody else get this, or was it a fluke?
If it is, can I pay a couple of bucks to stop it?
For those having problems getting the patch, mirrors are here:
US1
US2
US3
US4
UK1
UK2
For some of us, this is nothing new.
Somebody please mod the parent up. This is useful information.
Why not have a domain especially for television stations, auction sites, brick and mortar stores, and xxx sites? Finding what we want (and avoiding what we don't) would be tons easier, and there wouldn't have to be monopolies on small countries' domain names to make it possible.
From Lenin to Jiang Zemin is obviously not progress.