Given there is no human occupant to protect, the planes can be made more aerodynamic, and more maneouverable.. and deal with forces much greater than our conventional fighters can.
(most, if not all, modern planes can handle forces and manouvers that would easily kill their occupants)
None. Period.
Firstly, ANYONE can think up a billion TLD's and think of a use for them. Does that make them 'good ideas?'. No. It doesn't.
We should be REDUCING TLD's and getting back to alternative lookup services for locating web content. THe current geographic domain space is MORE than adequate to serve what we have already. THe problem is what people want to do with domains.
I ask everyone this: If we add more TLD's now, when will it end? A year or two later, the same parties will be bitching for more domains... and more money and power will be handed out with them.
Really. Nothing has 'been elimenated'. There is still no such thing as a 'perfect lens' and nobody is planning on building one, even in the remote future.
To quote the article 'no known materials have the refractive properties we need'.
it's all simply theory.. stating that IF such a material existed, we could make a perfect lens.
Isn't it because, as it's CIA internal stuff, and legal council would have to get security clearance in order to work with them?
I mean, seriously. THe people involved her have security clearance, are supposed to be EXTREMELY WELL TRUSTED.
Finding out they did something that was against policy.. what do you expect?
Besides.. they don't *NEED* to consult with legal council; nobody's putting them on trial!
My employer has absolutely no claim to what I do on my own time, ESPECIALLY if it has nothign to do with my work.
Now, many employment contracts DO state that employers DO own your thoughts.. but that's between you and your employer. If it's not in writing, they don't own it.
I'm not saying they have zero impact whatsoever, but I am saying that, if you look around, the vast majority of those at *all* levels of the warez scene hoard software for the sake of it. Even 99% of the stuff I've downloaded to goof with was erased (or rather, uninstalled) and shelved within days.. either that, orleftinstalled, and just forgotten about.
For the vast majority of pirated software, I'm willing to bet this is the case, at least in north america.
In the industry in general.. it's not that sysadmins do not 'know' how to do things securely.. it's that they don't know how to properly justify the time spent doing security to their higher-ups.
I'm willing to bet that this is the #1 reason. And who's fault is it? It's BOTH the sysadmins fault and the company's fault.
The Sr. Sysadmin should be able to, in no uncertain terms, explain to the company the importace and *COST JUSTIFICATION* of proper security, and should also perform proper security audits, and instruct his staff accordingly.
In cases where there is no overall system designer, and some Jr. guy runs the show... that's the fault of the company.
And yeah.. I'm kind of saying that the most important factor (or at least, an equally important factor) about systems administrations is not simply technical knowhow, but procedural knowhow.. knowing how to do your job, which is more than just technical.
Saying 'most sysadmins don't know much about security' has nothing to do with the issue.
Use NFS. Seriously.
Make this machine an NFS server, and create a boot floppy for the other lab machines to allow them to boot into linux. In this manner, users can have local-root on their workstations if they need to do network experimenting, but the system-level stuff stays there, on the one box, secured by you.
Also, this is a better exercise, and more true to what unix is about.
Most, if not all, 0-day sites are simply run by the 'warez' culture that gets a boner off of hoarding large collections of software. Big deal. Most of the warez dudes I know don't even RUN the stuff they have.. they just trade software like pokemon. Very little of it actually ends up used by anyone.
We built this network to allow IP scanning.
Geographic locations are (roughly) approximated by various IP registries & domain registries, which is publicly available information.
What's the big deal?
Oh.. and who gets prosecuted for scanning? I mean, sure, your ISP can put in your TOS that no scanning is to be done because it causes them a headache.. but that's only an issue with small residential connnections. If you have big pipes, you are NOT told what to do.
Windows 2000 Professional (successor to NT 4 workstation)
Windows 2000 Server (successor to NT 4 server)
Windows 2000 Advanced Server (above + backoffice + other new shit). Terminal services are now included, rather than in a separate package (NT 4 terminal server edition, etc)
And windows ME (successor to windows 98).
The rest are OLD and deprecated.
And we don't count 'CE' because that's not really windows.
Actually.. they probablyu don't THINK there MIGHT be a couple bad licenses... they probably think there are a LOT of unlicensed copies running. a LOT. THey may have been tipped off that the IT Dept. was not tracking licensing, or whatever, so they decided to make a point out of it.
Yeah.. tco... any large institution/company's IT department should damn well KNOW that you have to track your licensing, and be able to account for it, simply because it opens up a legal exposure to the company. You have to track it, otherwise, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE LEGIT?
If asked this question, I could satisfy their lawyers in about 10 minutes by opening up one file folder full of licensing info.
They'd probably be happy with the spreadsheet, and budget documents. (the fact that the money was budgeted, and an internal document indicates that, on a per-employee basis, we are legit. They don't *care* about one or two rogue license.
If VA Beach had proper internal documentation to demonstrate their licensing was in order, this would probably not be a problem.
Of course.. how many of us think about that.
As any large company, they have an obligation to their shareholders (taxpayers) to minimize legal exposure. Every IT dept. should know that you must be able to account for your software licensing.
Seriously. Sounds evil, right? I mean, I don't like it.. but..
IF someone walked into my company (granted I'm not THAT big) and said 'I'm from MS, this is our lawyer, and we want you to demonstrate that you are up-to-date on your licensing' I could give him a very fair and good showing of it in about 15 minutes. I would not have to go out and 'audit' my entire company, and would not expect them to ask me to. I can say 'We have x employees, here is a chart covering our licenses. If you wanna wait a few days, our purchasing guys can pull up all the POs if you don't believe us.
Simply the fact that the records exist would probably appease them.
I would think being asked to confirm your licensing would only seem 'intolerable' if you are not at all prepared. How do they know they are up to date?
Okay.. seriously.. that's not meant as bait for flames. I'm serious! Those answers are terrifying! If he gets elected, I will be terrified, both of him and those who elect him!
Yeah.. cause the plane was forced through very high speeds at low altitude. At extreme altitudes (100,000 feet is WAY over any commercial jet, even Concorde, or even supersonic fighters, or bombers, etc...), there is basically very little air resistance.
Keep in mind, it takes energy to produce heat; if she was encountering enough friction to burn up in freefall, she would SLOW DOWN, not burn up. She would slow unless something was forcing her faster.....
The reason orbital objects burn up is due to horizontal velocity.
Altitude, altitude, altitude.
She will not be breaking mach or anywhere NEAR mach at 10,000 feet. As the article said (and you quoted), at those altitudes, she will be basically like any other skydiver, though a bit slower due to bulk of pressure suit.
At high altitudes (100,000 feet or so), she WILL break mach, but the air is so thin.. well.. tha'ts why she can do it! The X-1 didn't go that high.
Slashdot Mirror
That vinylvideo thing.. I recall viewing it years and years ago. Nothign new, somewhat of a joke.
Given there is no human occupant to protect, the planes can be made more aerodynamic, and more maneouverable.. and deal with forces much greater than our conventional fighters can.
(most, if not all, modern planes can handle forces and manouvers that would easily kill their occupants)
Let's not confuse 'most technologically advanced' with 'most widely used'. They are not at all related, or the same thing.
tcp/ip is NOT the most technologically advanced, it is simply the most popular, and most widely used protocol out there.
None. Period.
Firstly, ANYONE can think up a billion TLD's and think of a use for them. Does that make them 'good ideas?'. No. It doesn't.
We should be REDUCING TLD's and getting back to alternative lookup services for locating web content. THe current geographic domain space is MORE than adequate to serve what we have already. THe problem is what people want to do with domains.
I ask everyone this: If we add more TLD's now, when will it end? A year or two later, the same parties will be bitching for more domains... and more money and power will be handed out with them.
Really. Nothing has 'been elimenated'. There is still no such thing as a 'perfect lens' and nobody is planning on building one, even in the remote future.
To quote the article 'no known materials have the refractive properties we need'.
it's all simply theory.. stating that IF such a material existed, we could make a perfect lens.
Isn't it because, as it's CIA internal stuff, and legal council would have to get security clearance in order to work with them?
I mean, seriously. THe people involved her have security clearance, are supposed to be EXTREMELY WELL TRUSTED.
Finding out they did something that was against policy.. what do you expect?
Besides.. they don't *NEED* to consult with legal council; nobody's putting them on trial!
Or maybe I'm not a karma whore.
My employer has absolutely no claim to what I do on my own time, ESPECIALLY if it has nothign to do with my work.
Now, many employment contracts DO state that employers DO own your thoughts.. but that's between you and your employer. If it's not in writing, they don't own it.
Can they fine you? Sure. *I* can fine you!
But only a court can force the issue.
Ahh yes.. but.... your *corporate licensing agreement* with Metallica allows this.. oh wait.. there's no such thing!
I'm not saying they have zero impact whatsoever, but I am saying that, if you look around, the vast majority of those at *all* levels of the warez scene hoard software for the sake of it. Even 99% of the stuff I've downloaded to goof with was erased (or rather, uninstalled) and shelved within days.. either that, orleftinstalled, and just forgotten about.
For the vast majority of pirated software, I'm willing to bet this is the case, at least in north america.
In the industry in general.. it's not that sysadmins do not 'know' how to do things securely.. it's that they don't know how to properly justify the time spent doing security to their higher-ups.
I'm willing to bet that this is the #1 reason. And who's fault is it? It's BOTH the sysadmins fault and the company's fault.
The Sr. Sysadmin should be able to, in no uncertain terms, explain to the company the importace and *COST JUSTIFICATION* of proper security, and should also perform proper security audits, and instruct his staff accordingly.
In cases where there is no overall system designer, and some Jr. guy runs the show... that's the fault of the company.
And yeah.. I'm kind of saying that the most important factor (or at least, an equally important factor) about systems administrations is not simply technical knowhow, but procedural knowhow.. knowing how to do your job, which is more than just technical.
Saying 'most sysadmins don't know much about security' has nothing to do with the issue.
"Poor policy" is a better one...
Use NFS. Seriously.
Make this machine an NFS server, and create a boot floppy for the other lab machines to allow them to boot into linux. In this manner, users can have local-root on their workstations if they need to do network experimenting, but the system-level stuff stays there, on the one box, secured by you.
Also, this is a better exercise, and more true to what unix is about.
Why? I mean, one is no different than the other.
Most, if not all, 0-day sites are simply run by the 'warez' culture that gets a boner off of hoarding large collections of software. Big deal. Most of the warez dudes I know don't even RUN the stuff they have.. they just trade software like pokemon. Very little of it actually ends up used by anyone.
We built this network to allow IP scanning.
Geographic locations are (roughly) approximated by various IP registries & domain registries, which is publicly available information.
What's the big deal?
Oh.. and who gets prosecuted for scanning? I mean, sure, your ISP can put in your TOS that no scanning is to be done because it causes them a headache.. but that's only an issue with small residential connnections. If you have big pipes, you are NOT told what to do.
MS has these current distributions:
Windows 2000 Professional (successor to NT 4 workstation)
Windows 2000 Server (successor to NT 4 server)
Windows 2000 Advanced Server (above + backoffice + other new shit). Terminal services are now included, rather than in a separate package (NT 4 terminal server edition, etc)
And windows ME (successor to windows 98).
The rest are OLD and deprecated.
And we don't count 'CE' because that's not really windows.
Bah. They were supposed to discontinue for win2000. And they damn well should have, compatability be dammed.
Actually.. they probablyu don't THINK there MIGHT be a couple bad licenses... they probably think there are a LOT of unlicensed copies running. a LOT. THey may have been tipped off that the IT Dept. was not tracking licensing, or whatever, so they decided to make a point out of it.
Yeah.. tco... any large institution/company's IT department should damn well KNOW that you have to track your licensing, and be able to account for it, simply because it opens up a legal exposure to the company. You have to track it, otherwise, HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU ARE LEGIT?
If asked this question, I could satisfy their lawyers in about 10 minutes by opening up one file folder full of licensing info.
They'd probably be happy with the spreadsheet, and budget documents. (the fact that the money was budgeted, and an internal document indicates that, on a per-employee basis, we are legit. They don't *care* about one or two rogue license.
If VA Beach had proper internal documentation to demonstrate their licensing was in order, this would probably not be a problem.
Of course.. how many of us think about that.
As any large company, they have an obligation to their shareholders (taxpayers) to minimize legal exposure. Every IT dept. should know that you must be able to account for your software licensing.
Seriously. Sounds evil, right? I mean, I don't like it.. but..
IF someone walked into my company (granted I'm not THAT big) and said 'I'm from MS, this is our lawyer, and we want you to demonstrate that you are up-to-date on your licensing' I could give him a very fair and good showing of it in about 15 minutes. I would not have to go out and 'audit' my entire company, and would not expect them to ask me to. I can say 'We have x employees, here is a chart covering our licenses. If you wanna wait a few days, our purchasing guys can pull up all the POs if you don't believe us.
Simply the fact that the records exist would probably appease them.
I would think being asked to confirm your licensing would only seem 'intolerable' if you are not at all prepared. How do they know they are up to date?
>scares the living fuck out of me.
Okay.. seriously.. that's not meant as bait for flames. I'm serious! Those answers are terrifying! If he gets elected, I will be terrified, both of him and those who elect him!
scares the living fuck out of me.
USA. Land of the free, home of the brave.
A nice place where they put your right to education on hold because you won't be part of their theatrics and play 'homecoming king'.
Yeah.. cause the plane was forced through very high speeds at low altitude. At extreme altitudes (100,000 feet is WAY over any commercial jet, even Concorde, or even supersonic fighters, or bombers, etc...), there is basically very little air resistance.
Keep in mind, it takes energy to produce heat; if she was encountering enough friction to burn up in freefall, she would SLOW DOWN, not burn up. She would slow unless something was forcing her faster.....
The reason orbital objects burn up is due to horizontal velocity.
Altitude, altitude, altitude.
She will not be breaking mach or anywhere NEAR mach at 10,000 feet. As the article said (and you quoted), at those altitudes, she will be basically like any other skydiver, though a bit slower due to bulk of pressure suit.
At high altitudes (100,000 feet or so), she WILL break mach, but the air is so thin.. well.. tha'ts why she can do it! The X-1 didn't go that high.