No, you couldn't. You'd have to be a complete reject to screw up in the military.
You don't know what you're talking about. At the point in time I made my decision to stop using credit, I was out of the Air Force, supporting my wife and newborn son on a gross salary of $20k a year, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where cost of living is one of the highest in the country.
No, she couldn't. There was no wholesale industry in keeping people a large portion of the working population in debt in her time.
"Her Time" was when I was growing up - i.e., the late seventies and eighties. Surely you're not so arrogant as to think that the credit companies have only been making calculations as to how much money they can get out of someone who uses credit since *you* started using credit, are you?
Besides that, my mother is still alive, and still not using credit, even though her current employment pays her approximately $7 an hour. That's a far cry from being somehow 'forced' to use credit by the nefarious credit companies.
How many years were you subsidized?
Subsidized? What the hell are you talking about? I grew up with my mother working her behind off at a minimum wage job. You think that's being "subsidized"?
Perhaps you're referring to my military service. I was in for four years, but I don't view that as a subsidy - I had to go to work every day, if I hadn't, they wouldn't have paid me.
The average credit card debt for American households is $8k.
Read that article. Read it very carefully. The $8k figure you cite is an average balance of Americans who actually have at least one credit card, completely ignoring the 1 in 5 Americans who do not have any cards at all
In fact, only one in twenty Americans have a balance of $8k or more. That's 5%, which is hardly statistically significant in the context of your attempt to prove some grand credit conspiracy.
Quoting from the article:
- 23.8% of American households have no credit cards at all -- no bank cards, no retail cards, nothing. - Another 31.2% of the households the Fed surveyed paid off their most recent credit card bills in full.
That's 55% of Americans who carried no credit card debt at all at the time of the survey.
It's easy for you to label your fellow Americans as morons.
I'm not labeling my fellow Americans as morons. I'm labeling you a moron. There's quite a bit of difference there, see, you're alleging that I'm labeling 293,027,570 more people than I actually am. (It's a Joke, Son)
I have yet to meet a dictator who will admit they've wronged anyone.
That's actually kind of funny, coming from you, who apparently can't admit that a bad situation you find yourself in might actually be the result of a bad decision you made. Everything is everyone's fault but your own in your world.
See, I could've sunk myself into debt I couldn't handle, but didn't - when I realised I was nearing that edge, I stopped using credit to buy things, and I paid it off - and it took a while.
My mother could have sunk herself into debt she couldn't handle, but didn't. She's far better at it than I am, actually.
In both of these situations, the decision to *not* get into extensive debt was made when our respective incomes were low (in my mother's case, very low - as I said before, our neighbors on welfare received more in their welfare check than my mom netted). This isn't a 'priveleged vs. non-priveleged' issue. This is a 'made different choices' issue.
See, having grown up in economic conditions that you claim must 'force' everyone into debt, and seeing people's decisions make the difference between having large debts and not having large debts at all income levels, I'm not buying that argument.
I'll happily sign my name to a dishonest contract for the opportunity to expose a fraud. I'll do it time and again with every chance I'm given.
Well, then, you differ far greatly from myself. See, I think the thing to do with an actually dishonest contract is NOT SIGN IT
The actions taken by predatory lenders at those times was perfectly "legal" but you'll be hard pressed to find people who will support the intent behind them
Do a google search for "Predatory Lending Law". The thing to do with such things is to get a law passed against them, not whine about how you think such things are an excuse for you skipping out on your debt.
Lending money and expecting to receive it back, with a fair interest rate, is not morally reprehensible.
A loan shark is morally reprehensible, and predatory lending practices are morally reprehensible. There are laws against both already.
Keep on spinning excuses, if you like. AFAICT you're just someone who wants any wild reason to feel like you're not doing a wrong by not paying money owed back. All the crazy rants and whining 'not my fault' in the world won't change that.
So... again... I will not feel guilty about not paying back my debt. It wasn't my debt. It was debt which was engineered out of my control which I had no chance of ever getting ahead on
You keep telling yourself that. The simple fact is that you signed your name on paperwork saying 'lend me money, I'll pay it back'. You spent the money, did you not? You can rationalize it away all you like, but if you don't pay off your debt, you're dishonoring yourself, and any feeling you have that life isn't fair is due to your own actions.
Yet you will argue to your death that it is nothing short of a conspiracy theory that another organization, such as the credit industry, has not carefully figured out just how much particular segments of the population need for clothing, food, and housing. You will also categorically deny for all time that the credit industry is further liberated by not having any care in the world whether or not you go bankrupt. You will also ignore that the credit industry will increase its profit margin by continuing to use its knowledge and position to continue to ensure that there are large segments of the population which are kept in debt.
I have "categorically denied" absolutely none of this.
Of course the credit companies try to make what they can. Of course they use such methods.
The point I'm making, and the one you continue to miss, is that whether they succeed or not is entirely up to the individual
The credit card companies send me, every week, offers for credit cards with limits that I'm certain they've calculated based on what they know about my income.
Additionally you're neglecting that, while on active duty, there's no debt for housing or food. There's also no consideration about buying dress shirts at $40/pop or ties at $30/pop. If one is living on base there's also little or no need for a car at $250/mo. plus gas at $1.80/gal for 120 miles of commuting every day.
You know jack about the military, sir. As a single service member, yes, you live in the dorm and are fed.
I was married. I had to live off-base because there was no available base housing. BAS and BAQ (Basic Allowance for Sustenence, Basic Allowance for Quarters) put together didn't cover my rent. As I remember, I had to save money from my mid month paycheck to put it on top of my first of the month check to get the rent covered, leaving me with about $600 to cover utilities, the car payment and insurance, and food, for the rest of the month. Even if you managed to get into base housing (after being on a waiting list for two years), feeding a family on $15k gross a year is a neat trick.
So money was very tight, it wasn't a pie-in-the-sky free ride. I didn't bitch that the military doesn't pay enlisted enough - I took care of things using what I had.
There's also no consideration about buying dress shirts at $40/pop or ties at $30/pop. If one is living on base there's also little or no need for a car at $250/mo. plus gas at $1.80/gal for 120 miles of commuting every day.
Again showing your ignorance. We were responsible for purchasing our own uniforms. We received a yearly clothing allowance, but just like BAQ, it was a set amount and didn't cover all I had to buy. The only issued equipment I received was a pair of steel toed boots, about once a year. Since I was living off base, I had to have a car, and guess what, just like everyone else, I had to make the payments on the car, and buy gas for it - out of the money that was left -after- I paid the rent. And guess what - I paid my bills, rent, car insurance and car payment - on time, despite my finances being very tight. And I never had a credit agency chasing me. Funny, that, how meeting obligations you entered into seems to be a magic sheild preventing them from ever calling you...
FYI, adding up BAS, BAQ, my clothing allowance, and my pay, we're talking a gross income of a little bit over $15k a year my third year of service, and I had all the expenses a civilian had.
You'll take great glee in touting around "life isn't fair--deal with it" yet you'll steadfastly deny to the bitter end that large financial corporations are happily making that more true each and every day.
Corporations wouldn't be able to 'make life unfair' if people lived within their means. It's not a corporate decision that forces people into debt. It's their decision to swipe the card. Borrowing the money, then not paying the bill and complaining about how it's 'unfair' is a load of crap. Decent people take care of their debts, decent people work their ass off when they have to go into debt for medical purposes. Decent people step up and find a way to take care of their obligations when they've entered into them. Smart people pay more than the minimum payment when they can so they're not getting screwed by the interest. Again, I'll reiterate - the presence of the debt, and thus the bad financial situation, is the consequence of the person who borrowed the money's actions. It's not a matter of 'life isn't fair, deal with it'. It's a matter of 'You put yourself in this situation, and now you want to foist the blame off on who you owe the money to, rather than admitting that you made some bad choices and put yourself where you're at?'. Show me a child who owes thousands because his/her parents screwed up their credit and started taking loans out in their child's name, and I'll show you someone who's blameless in regard to the amount of debt they hold. For everyone else, it's a result of their actions.
The overwhelming perception of the 40s and 50s is quaint frugality because of the hardships that America had to endure. People weren't any more frugal back then than they are now.
I think you're letting your mindset get the better of you. The anonymous coward you're replying to said naught about the 40's and 50's.
People grow up poor in all decades. Some people have frugal parents, in all decades.
Myself, I was born in 1976, and we were dirt poor - and my mother was frugal. She has zero debt, the only thing she's ever owed money on was her house, and she paid it off fifteen years early - by being frugal on a low income. She also managed to save enough money so that she doesn't have to work now - and for many of my growing up years, she was working, but had less money after taxes than the people on welfare in the apartment complex we lived in. (My mother worked her ass off, and I was wearing shoes from Payless. Our next door nieghbor's son had Air Jordans, which were priced in excess of $100, and she was on welfare). And lest you try the same argument on me as you attempt on the above anonymous coward, there was no light at the end of the tunnel, no knowledge that the situation had an endpoint - The only thing I knew is that once I was an adult it would be up to me to make my way.
I sank myself into more debt than I wanted to handle, when I was younger. But no one held a gun to my head, telling me to swipe the card or they'd pull the trigger. And now, I've paid it off - the only debt I have is the house, and in the long run, paying on the house for fifteen years (paying extra to shorten the length of the mortgage) is a boatload better than renting for thirty.
Many of us earned our keep in life by staring the impossible risk in the face every day without the assurance that mother military would always keep a bivouac over our heads.
Mother military will *not* keep a bivouac over your head. Not paying your bills is, if I remember correctly, grounds for nonjudicial punishment (at least, the first time, if you don't get your shit together) The only metaphorical bivouac there is in the military is that they tell you that pretty plainly straight up during basic training.
The military some golden blanket? Bull. My gross income as an E-1 was barely over $10,000, and if I didn't manage that money well, to the point where I had creditors coming after me, I'd be facing an Article 15. Hell, even when I got out (as an E4), I was only netting $350 a week - My sister took a minimum wage job at a Circle K and was netting more than that.
Get a grip. Stop foisting the blame on everyone else and lay it square where it lies - with the person who said 'If you lend it to me, I'll pay that money back'.
And sure, situations change, and sometimes people can't pay debt they incurred during better times. That, however, is the result of their actions. If they hadn't run up the debt to the point where something like a job loss or an unexpected medical bill left them unable to pay recurring expenses, that's due to their lack of planning, not some nebulous credit conspiracy.
I thought he was talking about things like editing out or fuzzifying brand names when uttered in lyrics or when on artist clothing. MTV does that sort of thing all the time.
An example from a long time ago, Digital Underground's song 'The Humpty Dance' has the lyric 'I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom' - when the video ran on MTV, they edited out 'Burger King' - 'I once got busy in a [silent pause] bathroom'.
You know, cause McDonald's is an MTV advertiser...
I don't need a lesson in calling rand();) I wrote code pretty much like yours ten years ago.:)
The 'probably weakened' bit is this - If you're doing the same 'use two seeds' bit to generate the key for decrypting as well, the actual key is not the generated key, but the seeds, which have far fewer bits than the generated key.
If you're generating the key and then getting that key to your friend somehow, and the seeds are not used for decryption at all (This sounds like what you're doing, reading the original post I interpreted it as your doing the above), you're probably ok as long as you do something to sufficiently change what the same seeds would pick as a key later (rearrange the data on your drive).
If you read Applied Cryptography, there's a bit in there where Schnier talks about one time pads. If you use the key for more than one plaintext, it can be broken, basically it's a matter of getting the key to repeat - if you have two cryptexts encrypted with the same key, you butt the two plaintexts together so that the key repeats, then you can XOR the crypttext against the crypttext shifted over the length of the key, which removes the encryption - you end up with the plaintext XOR'd against itself shifted over the length of the key (eg, if your key is five chars, and your first message is 'hello' and your second is 'world', you end up with the string resulting from XORing char by char 'helloworld' against 'worldhello'. From there it's much easier to decode than the original encrypted files. IIRC Schneir talks about how we broke a russian one time pad because they used the same key for multiple plaintexts (however, because they didn't throw the key away, and only use it once, it was then not really a 'one time pad'... the 'one time' bit in there means 'only using the pad (key) once').
So, only use a key generated how you're generating it for one plaintext (one file, etc).
Of course, it may be likely that no one with the knowledge to break it in that manner cares about what you've encrypted, in which case what you're doing may be just fine for your purposes. There's always the 'is this important enough to protect in a better manner' decision.
He social engineered, yes. However, at least when he broke into Shimomura's machines, he used a combination syn-flood/ip-spoofing attack to exploit an rhosts trust relationship to gain access.
Whether he wrote the exploit code himself or not, I'm not sure of.
That extra 4mpg will translate into having to walk eight extra miles in the worst case scenario. That scenario is running out of gas where the nearest gas station is behind you (say, ten miles to a gas station you've already passed, twenty to the next one in the direction you're headed) and you have to walk both to the gas station, and then back to your car, because people are jerks and won't give you a ride.;)
It was my understanding that there was no time limit in the contract, and that SCO is saying 'Thirty days was reasonable and they didn't do that'. As usual, trying to argue requirements into the contract that aren't there.
Well, if it's not in the contract, if you had to wait a few more months, so what?
So the only issue left is whether Diamler should have done it withing the thirty days SCO is whining about, and I expect they'll get spanked on that eventually too.
While it is true that ethernet addresses don't have to be unique worldwide, only within a broadcast domain, they are supposed to be unique.
The card manufacturers are given prefixes to use in the MAC of cards they make, and are supposed to not manufacture two cards with the same MAC. In practice, it happens, and you can usually just set a MAC address anyway. This is just a bit of trivia, however, in regard to why the MAC cannot be used for this purpose.
The reason the suggestion to use a MAC address won't work is because the MAC address should never leave the broadcast domain. It has nothing to do with whether or not MAC addresses are or should be unique. You're basically saying an effect (The MAC addresses never leaving a broadcast domain allows MAC addresses to, in practice, be duplicated in seperate broadcast domains) with the cause of another effect (The MAC addresses never leaving a broadcast domain means the MAC is unavailable to use in the manner suggested).
Two effects, one cause, but you're saying one effect is the cause of the other effect.
That's like making a shot in pool, where the cue ball hits two other balls simultaneously, yet the other two balls never contact each other, and saying 'the four ball dropped in the left corner pocket because the three ball dropped in the right corner pocket' - the balls dropped in the pockets they dropped in because the cue ball hit them, not because the other ball fell in the other pocket.
I think you should step up and actually make the decision as to what your children are allowed to watch yourself, rather than expecting your government to make it for you (and everyone else).
We've had the 'filter technology' for years, it's called the 'on/off switch'.
Having that wisdom when the kids don't - that is what parenting is.
My son doesn't have the wisdom to see that running in the street without looking is a bad idea. That's why I'm there holding his hand, even when he doesn't like it.
Your post may be dangerously close to 'give the kids everything they want'... which in my experience tends to be a bad mode of parenting... just a thought.:)
Yes, the impact quite definitely depends on the protocol.
As far as flooding the network with packets, the point of it is that the fact that you don't need to hit a specific sequence number, you just need one within the window... so it may not actually require a 'flood of packets', necessarily, perhaps just a bucket brigade, moving it into the realm of practicality (depending on protocol).
I vaguely remember reading something somewhere by one of the guys you'd always find stuff by, in security related searches (aleph1 or daemon9, I think, but my memory on this point is failing me) that said something to the effect that 'there's a condition that affects a routing protocol that could take down chunks of the net pretty quickly', I ran across this years ago, and I'm paraphrasing it... but now I'm wondering if this is what was referred to.
In practice, these attacks are quite tricky to perform, because they require good timing and quite a bit of skills
Well, they require a packet with the right sequence number to hit in the right time period.
Since there's a window of accepted sequence numbers, it really only requires a shitload of packets with likely numbers. Send enough good guesses and one will hit at the right time.
Like a race exploit, I don't think this requires 'good timing', I think it requires enough attempts to reduce the odds - many will fail, but one may succeed.
X stops working? from editing a sound card config? That smells like a very large pile of bullshit to me. That may be what happened from his perspective, but I'd guess he mucked with something other than sound during the tech support call, if so.
Sound can be a pain in the ass to get working. This is true enough, depending on your card. However, the fact that he doesn't say which version of the distributions he tried, nor does he say what the sound hardware is, and the fact that he's basing his 'lack of broad support' conclusion on *one sound device*, rather than a sampling of a few, lead me to believe the whole article is just a pile of 'I now have a reason to say Linux sucks'. (In essence, I'm agreeing with you here, I think).
If the guy had written 'I have this hardware, tried these versions of these distributions, and I couldn't get this sound card to work', he'd probably have tons of people willing to help, but that doesn't support his conclusion.
I tend to think that the hardware was not identified because, if it were, someone with that hardware would either install linux on it with sound working, and say 'hey, your article was bogus, it works', or try to install all those versions of windows, and say, 'hey, you're full of crap, these versions of windows don't work'.
There's also the matter of his usage of 'Virtual PC' to do the installs on - he claims that the software emulated a plain vanilla SoundBlaster card, and worked with such and such versions of Windows but not with Linux.
Hasn't Linux had plain vanilla SoundBlaster support for a *very* long time? Something is fishy here, and I'd suspect that this portion of it may be an emulator issue rather than a failure in Linux, assuming it's even true.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you couldn't. You'd have to be a complete reject to screw up in the military.
You don't know what you're talking about. At the point in time I made my decision to stop using credit, I was out of the Air Force, supporting my wife and newborn son on a gross salary of $20k a year, in the San Francisco Bay Area, where cost of living is one of the highest in the country.
No, she couldn't. There was no wholesale industry in keeping people a large portion of the working population in debt in her time.
"Her Time" was when I was growing up - i.e., the late seventies and eighties. Surely you're not so arrogant as to think that the credit companies have only been making calculations as to how much money they can get out of someone who uses credit since *you* started using credit, are you?
Besides that, my mother is still alive, and still not using credit, even though her current employment pays her approximately $7 an hour. That's a far cry from being somehow 'forced' to use credit by the nefarious credit companies.
How many years were you subsidized?
Subsidized? What the hell are you talking about? I grew up with my mother working her behind off at a minimum wage job. You think that's being "subsidized"?
Perhaps you're referring to my military service. I was in for four years, but I don't view that as a subsidy - I had to go to work every day, if I hadn't, they wouldn't have paid me.
The average credit card debt for American households is $8k.
The average credit card debt may be $8k, but that doesn't mean the average person has $8k in debt.. You insinuated I did not understand mathematics earlier, yet now you completely ignore basic implications of how averages are calculated.
Read that article. Read it very carefully. The $8k figure you cite is an average balance of Americans who actually have at least one credit card, completely ignoring the 1 in 5 Americans who do not have any cards at all
In fact, only one in twenty Americans have a balance of $8k or more. That's 5%, which is hardly statistically significant in the context of your attempt to prove some grand credit conspiracy.
Quoting from the article:
- 23.8% of American households have no credit cards at all -- no bank cards, no retail cards, nothing.
- Another 31.2% of the households the Fed surveyed paid off their most recent credit card bills in full.
That's 55% of Americans who carried no credit card debt at all at the time of the survey.
It's easy for you to label your fellow Americans as morons.
I'm not labeling my fellow Americans as morons. I'm labeling you a moron. There's quite a bit of difference there, see, you're alleging that I'm labeling 293,027,570 more people than I actually am. (It's a Joke, Son)
I have yet to meet a dictator who will admit they've wronged anyone.
That's actually kind of funny, coming from you, who apparently can't admit that a bad situation you find yourself in might actually be the result of a bad decision you made. Everything is everyone's fault but your own in your world.
You are blessed by the privelege
You are as well.
See, I could've sunk myself into debt I couldn't handle, but didn't - when I realised I was nearing that edge, I stopped using credit to buy things, and I paid it off - and it took a while.
My mother could have sunk herself into debt she couldn't handle, but didn't. She's far better at it than I am, actually.
In both of these situations, the decision to *not* get into extensive debt was made when our respective incomes were low (in my mother's case, very low - as I said before, our neighbors on welfare received more in their welfare check than my mom netted). This isn't a 'priveleged vs. non-priveleged' issue. This is a 'made different choices' issue.
See, having grown up in economic conditions that you claim must 'force' everyone into debt, and seeing people's decisions make the difference between having large debts and not having large debts at all income levels, I'm not buying that argument.
I'll happily sign my name to a dishonest contract for the opportunity to expose a fraud. I'll do it time and again with every chance I'm given.
Well, then, you differ far greatly from myself. See, I think the thing to do with an actually dishonest contract is NOT SIGN IT
The actions taken by predatory lenders at those times was perfectly "legal" but you'll be hard pressed to find people who will support the intent behind them
Do a google search for "Predatory Lending Law". The thing to do with such things is to get a law passed against them, not whine about how you think such things are an excuse for you skipping out on your debt.
You're ignoring the actual debate: that the debt is not real debt but is part of a contrived scheme.
Did you receive money? Did you sign papers saying you'd pay it back? Did you spend the money?
My guess is the answers to these three questions are "Yes".
Unless the lender violated the law, that's "real debt".
Lending money and expecting to receive it back, with a fair interest rate, is not morally reprehensible.
A loan shark is morally reprehensible, and predatory lending practices are morally reprehensible. There are laws against both already.
Keep on spinning excuses, if you like. AFAICT you're just someone who wants any wild reason to feel like you're not doing a wrong by not paying money owed back. All the crazy rants and whining 'not my fault' in the world won't change that.
So... again... I will not feel guilty about not paying back my debt. It wasn't my debt. It was debt which was engineered out of my control which I had no chance of ever getting ahead on
You keep telling yourself that. The simple fact is that you signed your name on paperwork saying 'lend me money, I'll pay it back'. You spent the money, did you not? You can rationalize it away all you like, but if you don't pay off your debt, you're dishonoring yourself, and any feeling you have that life isn't fair is due to your own actions.
Have a nice day.
Yet you will argue to your death that it is nothing short of a conspiracy theory that another organization, such as the credit industry, has not carefully figured out just how much particular segments of the population need for clothing, food, and housing. You will also categorically deny for all time that the credit industry is further liberated by not having any care in the world whether or not you go bankrupt. You will also ignore that the credit industry will increase its profit margin by continuing to use its knowledge and position to continue to ensure that there are large segments of the population which are kept in debt.
I have "categorically denied" absolutely none of this.
Of course the credit companies try to make what they can. Of course they use such methods.
The point I'm making, and the one you continue to miss, is that whether they succeed or not is entirely up to the individual
The credit card companies send me, every week, offers for credit cards with limits that I'm certain they've calculated based on what they know about my income.
You know what I do with those offers?
I shred them. Every one.
You get the point yet?
Additionally you're neglecting that, while on active duty, there's no debt for housing or food. There's also no consideration about buying dress shirts at $40/pop or ties at $30/pop. If one is living on base there's also little or no need for a car at $250/mo. plus gas at $1.80/gal for 120 miles of commuting every day.
...
You know jack about the military, sir. As a single service member, yes, you live in the dorm and are fed.
I was married. I had to live off-base because there was no available base housing. BAS and BAQ (Basic Allowance for Sustenence, Basic Allowance for Quarters) put together didn't cover my rent. As I remember, I had to save money from my mid month paycheck to put it on top of my first of the month check to get the rent covered, leaving me with about $600 to cover utilities, the car payment and insurance, and food, for the rest of the month. Even if you managed to get into base housing (after being on a waiting list for two years), feeding a family on $15k gross a year is a neat trick.
So money was very tight, it wasn't a pie-in-the-sky free ride. I didn't bitch that the military doesn't pay enlisted enough - I took care of things using what I had.
There's also no consideration about buying dress shirts at $40/pop or ties at $30/pop. If one is living on base there's also little or no need for a car at $250/mo. plus gas at $1.80/gal for 120 miles of commuting every day.
Again showing your ignorance. We were responsible for purchasing our own uniforms. We received a yearly clothing allowance, but just like BAQ, it was a set amount and didn't cover all I had to buy. The only issued equipment I received was a pair of steel toed boots, about once a year. Since I was living off base, I had to have a car, and guess what, just like everyone else, I had to make the payments on the car, and buy gas for it - out of the money that was left -after- I paid the rent. And guess what - I paid my bills, rent, car insurance and car payment - on time, despite my finances being very tight. And I never had a credit agency chasing me. Funny, that, how meeting obligations you entered into seems to be a magic sheild preventing them from ever calling you
FYI, adding up BAS, BAQ, my clothing allowance, and my pay, we're talking a gross income of a little bit over $15k a year my third year of service, and I had all the expenses a civilian had.
You'll take great glee in touting around "life isn't fair--deal with it" yet you'll steadfastly deny to the bitter end that large financial corporations are happily making that more true each and every day.
Corporations wouldn't be able to 'make life unfair' if people lived within their means. It's not a corporate decision that forces people into debt. It's their decision to swipe the card. Borrowing the money, then not paying the bill and complaining about how it's 'unfair' is a load of crap. Decent people take care of their debts, decent people work their ass off when they have to go into debt for medical purposes. Decent people step up and find a way to take care of their obligations when they've entered into them. Smart people pay more than the minimum payment when they can so they're not getting screwed by the interest. Again, I'll reiterate - the presence of the debt, and thus the bad financial situation, is the consequence of the person who borrowed the money's actions. It's not a matter of 'life isn't fair, deal with it'. It's a matter of 'You put yourself in this situation, and now you want to foist the blame off on who you owe the money to, rather than admitting that you made some bad choices and put yourself where you're at?'. Show me a child who owes thousands because his/her parents screwed up their credit and started taking loans out in their child's name, and I'll show you someone who's blameless in regard to the amount of debt they hold. For everyone else, it's a result of their actions.
Does this mean the creditor sho
The overwhelming perception of the 40s and 50s is quaint frugality because of the hardships that America had to endure. People weren't any more frugal back then than they are now.
I think you're letting your mindset get the better of you. The anonymous coward you're replying to said naught about the 40's and 50's.
People grow up poor in all decades. Some people have frugal parents, in all decades.
Myself, I was born in 1976, and we were dirt poor - and my mother was frugal. She has zero debt, the only thing she's ever owed money on was her house, and she paid it off fifteen years early - by being frugal on a low income. She also managed to save enough money so that she doesn't have to work now - and for many of my growing up years, she was working, but had less money after taxes than the people on welfare in the apartment complex we lived in. (My mother worked her ass off, and I was wearing shoes from Payless. Our next door nieghbor's son had Air Jordans, which were priced in excess of $100, and she was on welfare). And lest you try the same argument on me as you attempt on the above anonymous coward, there was no light at the end of the tunnel, no knowledge that the situation had an endpoint - The only thing I knew is that once I was an adult it would be up to me to make my way.
I sank myself into more debt than I wanted to handle, when I was younger. But no one held a gun to my head, telling me to swipe the card or they'd pull the trigger. And now, I've paid it off - the only debt I have is the house, and in the long run, paying on the house for fifteen years (paying extra to shorten the length of the mortgage) is a boatload better than renting for thirty.
Many of us earned our keep in life by staring the impossible risk in the face every day without the assurance that mother military would always keep a bivouac over our heads.
Mother military will *not* keep a bivouac over your head. Not paying your bills is, if I remember correctly, grounds for nonjudicial punishment (at least, the first time, if you don't get your shit together) The only metaphorical bivouac there is in the military is that they tell you that pretty plainly straight up during basic training.
The military some golden blanket? Bull. My gross income as an E-1 was barely over $10,000, and if I didn't manage that money well, to the point where I had creditors coming after me, I'd be facing an Article 15. Hell, even when I got out (as an E4), I was only netting $350 a week - My sister took a minimum wage job at a Circle K and was netting more than that.
Get a grip. Stop foisting the blame on everyone else and lay it square where it lies - with the person who said 'If you lend it to me, I'll pay that money back'.
And sure, situations change, and sometimes people can't pay debt they incurred during better times. That, however, is the result of their actions. If they hadn't run up the debt to the point where something like a job loss or an unexpected medical bill left them unable to pay recurring expenses, that's due to their lack of planning, not some nebulous credit conspiracy.
I thought he was talking about things like editing out or fuzzifying brand names when uttered in lyrics or when on artist clothing. MTV does that sort of thing all the time.
...
An example from a long time ago, Digital Underground's song 'The Humpty Dance' has the lyric 'I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom' - when the video ran on MTV, they edited out 'Burger King' - 'I once got busy in a [silent pause] bathroom'.
You know, cause McDonald's is an MTV advertiser
I don't need a lesson in calling rand() ;) I wrote code pretty much like yours ten years ago. :)
... the 'one time' bit in there means 'only using the pad (key) once').
The 'probably weakened' bit is this - If you're doing the same 'use two seeds' bit to generate the key for decrypting as well, the actual key is not the generated key, but the seeds, which have far fewer bits than the generated key.
If you're generating the key and then getting that key to your friend somehow, and the seeds are not used for decryption at all (This sounds like what you're doing, reading the original post I interpreted it as your doing the above), you're probably ok as long as you do something to sufficiently change what the same seeds would pick as a key later (rearrange the data on your drive).
If you read Applied Cryptography, there's a bit in there where Schnier talks about one time pads. If you use the key for more than one plaintext, it can be broken, basically it's a matter of getting the key to repeat - if you have two cryptexts encrypted with the same key, you butt the two plaintexts together so that the key repeats, then you can XOR the crypttext against the crypttext shifted over the length of the key, which removes the encryption - you end up with the plaintext XOR'd against itself shifted over the length of the key (eg, if your key is five chars, and your first message is 'hello' and your second is 'world', you end up with the string resulting from XORing char by char 'helloworld' against 'worldhello'. From there it's much easier to decode than the original encrypted files. IIRC Schneir talks about how we broke a russian one time pad because they used the same key for multiple plaintexts (however, because they didn't throw the key away, and only use it once, it was then not really a 'one time pad'
So, only use a key generated how you're generating it for one plaintext (one file, etc).
Of course, it may be likely that no one with the knowledge to break it in that manner cares about what you've encrypted, in which case what you're doing may be just fine for your purposes. There's always the 'is this important enough to protect in a better manner' decision.
Eh, one thing I forgot ... a critical bit of a one time pad is that you only use the key for one message.
The 'take the file, take the key' algorithm is unbreakable when the key is as long or longer than the plaintext, and trivially breakable otherwise.
... how many bits were the two seeds?
when the key is longer than the text it's generally called a 'one time pad'.
As in any symmetric encryption, it has problems related to key distribution.
You probably actually weakened it by using a PRNG in the manner you did to pick the key material
He social engineered, yes. However, at least when he broke into Shimomura's machines, he used a combination syn-flood/ip-spoofing attack to exploit an rhosts trust relationship to gain access.
Whether he wrote the exploit code himself or not, I'm not sure of.
That's not the worst case scenario.
;)
That extra 4mpg will translate into having to walk eight extra miles in the worst case scenario. That scenario is running out of gas where the nearest gas station is behind you (say, ten miles to a gas station you've already passed, twenty to the next one in the direction you're headed) and you have to walk both to the gas station, and then back to your car, because people are jerks and won't give you a ride.
Hmm.
It was my understanding that there was no time limit in the contract, and that SCO is saying 'Thirty days was reasonable and they didn't do that'. As usual, trying to argue requirements into the contract that aren't there.
Well, if it's not in the contract, if you had to wait a few more months, so what?
So the only issue left is whether Diamler should have done it withing the thirty days SCO is whining about, and I expect they'll get spanked on that eventually too.
While it is true that ethernet addresses don't have to be unique worldwide, only within a broadcast domain, they are supposed to be unique.
The card manufacturers are given prefixes to use in the MAC of cards they make, and are supposed to not manufacture two cards with the same MAC. In practice, it happens, and you can usually just set a MAC address anyway. This is just a bit of trivia, however, in regard to why the MAC cannot be used for this purpose.
The reason the suggestion to use a MAC address won't work is because the MAC address should never leave the broadcast domain. It has nothing to do with whether or not MAC addresses are or should be unique. You're basically saying an effect (The MAC addresses never leaving a broadcast domain allows MAC addresses to, in practice, be duplicated in seperate broadcast domains) with the cause of another effect (The MAC addresses never leaving a broadcast domain means the MAC is unavailable to use in the manner suggested). Two effects, one cause, but you're saying one effect is the cause of the other effect. That's like making a shot in pool, where the cue ball hits two other balls simultaneously, yet the other two balls never contact each other, and saying 'the four ball dropped in the left corner pocket because the three ball dropped in the right corner pocket' - the balls dropped in the pockets they dropped in because the cue ball hit them, not because the other ball fell in the other pocket.
I think you should step up and actually make the decision as to what your children are allowed to watch yourself, rather than expecting your government to make it for you (and everyone else).
We've had the 'filter technology' for years, it's called the 'on/off switch'.
I can't believe the stupidity displayed therein..
"n fact, an internal memo informed DiCamillo, Giannantonio and Brandt that QUIKVUE was up and running and told them how to log on to check it out."
Holy Crap! A memo! Saying the app was up! That's so CRIMINAL!
Google Green Is PEOPLE!
Having that wisdom when the kids don't - that is what parenting is.
... which in my experience tends to be a bad mode of parenting ... just a thought. :)
My son doesn't have the wisdom to see that running in the street without looking is a bad idea. That's why I'm there holding his hand, even when he doesn't like it.
Your post may be dangerously close to 'give the kids everything they want'
Yes, the impact quite definitely depends on the protocol.
... so it may not actually require a 'flood of packets', necessarily, perhaps just a bucket brigade, moving it into the realm of practicality (depending on protocol).
... but now I'm wondering if this is what was referred to.
As far as flooding the network with packets, the point of it is that the fact that you don't need to hit a specific sequence number, you just need one within the window
I vaguely remember reading something somewhere by one of the guys you'd always find stuff by, in security related searches (aleph1 or daemon9, I think, but my memory on this point is failing me) that said something to the effect that 'there's a condition that affects a routing protocol that could take down chunks of the net pretty quickly', I ran across this years ago, and I'm paraphrasing it
rsh shouldn't leave the machine.
In practice, these attacks are quite tricky to perform, because they require good timing and quite a bit of skills
Well, they require a packet with the right sequence number to hit in the right time period.
Since there's a window of accepted sequence numbers, it really only requires a shitload of packets with likely numbers. Send enough good guesses and one will hit at the right time.
Like a race exploit, I don't think this requires 'good timing', I think it requires enough attempts to reduce the odds - many will fail, but one may succeed.
I don't know that it was bad tech support.
X stops working? from editing a sound card config? That smells like a very large pile of bullshit to me. That may be what happened from his perspective, but I'd guess he mucked with something other than sound during the tech support call, if so.
Sound can be a pain in the ass to get working. This is true enough, depending on your card. However, the fact that he doesn't say which version of the distributions he tried, nor does he say what the sound hardware is, and the fact that he's basing his 'lack of broad support' conclusion on *one sound device*, rather than a sampling of a few, lead me to believe the whole article is just a pile of 'I now have a reason to say Linux sucks'. (In essence, I'm agreeing with you here, I think).
If the guy had written 'I have this hardware, tried these versions of these distributions, and I couldn't get this sound card to work', he'd probably have tons of people willing to help, but that doesn't support his conclusion.
I tend to think that the hardware was not identified because, if it were, someone with that hardware would either install linux on it with sound working, and say 'hey, your article was bogus, it works', or try to install all those versions of windows, and say, 'hey, you're full of crap, these versions of windows don't work'.
There's also the matter of his usage of 'Virtual PC' to do the installs on - he claims that the software emulated a plain vanilla SoundBlaster card, and worked with such and such versions of Windows but not with Linux.
Hasn't Linux had plain vanilla SoundBlaster support for a *very* long time? Something is fishy here, and I'd suspect that this portion of it may be an emulator issue rather than a failure in Linux, assuming it's even true.