Of course people want to hide things, it's human nature. Unfortunately, folks, what you do in public is public. Period. If you are in a public area, or where you can be seen from one, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. It seems rather silly to complain about privacy violations when one acts publicly.
I can see no reason why a camera in a public area violates anyone's rights any more than a policeman watching from the corner. As a matter of fact, the camera is less likely to bear false witness, which is the only valid concern in this case.
I am slowly convinced, that any larger piece of C(++)-Code which handles strings, has in fact at least one Buffer overflow.
C and C++ are not the same language, nor is it truly accurate to consider C++ a superset of C. C++ written using it's native string type (std::string) instead of the legacy C strings is quite safe and easy to use. Only those who who don't know C++ have trouble writing safe code in it.
It's possible to write bad code in any language; for those who don't really know the language it becomes probable.
That's because there is no military applications. You don't want the soldiers to become fearless, because if they do, they might say: "This war is wrong. I used to be too afraid to do anything about it, but now I suddenly feel fearless, and will get the heck away from here !" Basically, fearless soldiers will refuse to obey when given orders that they think are wrong, and cannot be forced to obey by fear of punishment.
This is so incorrect as to lead me to guess that the original poster either has not served in the armed services or had a bad experience while doing so. In a successful military, soldiers serve because they believe, not because they are forced to. This is exactly why, even in this era of recruiting problems, the US military still strongly prefers to avoid the draft. It is choice, not fear, that makes fighters effective.
I was in SAC from 1978 - 1982, as a missile maint. tech. (a.k.a. "Missile Monkey"). While I can't speak to security prior to that time, I can say that by 78:
Security clearances for all personnel associated with the program were extreme... mine took over 6 months, and I know they talked to many people.
To the best of my knowledge, PALs were active by that time, though I was not launch crew. Certainly we were trained that PALs were a factor.
The warheads were physically configured such that they could not fully arm until they had experienced the stresses of launch and reentry. There was no way to set them off "in the tube".
Visits to the actual capsules in the LCC (Launch Control Center) by non-military were limited to the training simulator.
While the LCF (Launch Control Facility) appears to be a soft facility on the surface (simple wooden buildings, chain link fences, lightly guarded) nothing up there matters as far as control over the weapons. Only the LCC, the actual capsule a classified number of feet underground, matters and physically it's very imposing. There is no way to open a capsule in short terms from outside (the only accuators for the door locks are inside) and would certainly be a matter of many days even with modern equipment. Of course, even a minor violation the "topside" security was immediately and vigourously responded to, so these sites are not trivially penetrated as the author implies.
The missile sites were in some ways tougher. Even an authorized entrance to the hardened facility where everything worked properly took a minimum of 30 minutes plus the worse case time it would take for a security team to respond to that site. If any of the locks failed (I had it happen twice in the 3 years I was in the field) the break in procedure involved two jackhammers, a 16 ton crane, a load of other equipment and two days.. if pressed, I suspect it could have been done in one very long day. Of course, that would set number of alarms, including seismic and radar. Short of entering the hardened launch facility (the launch tube) there is no way to affect the missiles status.. you could not cause of prevent a launch from outside.
In short, perhaps if someone could gain access to a capsule they could have commanded a lauch, but they'd have had to subvert 2 complete LCC crews to command an immediate launch, and that's just not likely, even if the PALs were not active. One LCC could not command an immediate launch, and would have been overriden by the other capsules in the flight had it attempted to. As discussed above, penetrations of the control center or the actual missile facility could not yield results before an overwhelming response ended the threat. The way we were watched (and the capsule crews were more watched than we were) I doubt four people so profoundly without anyone noticing.
As for the "bad guys" gaining access to a warhead from the missile site... not a chance. First, to do that they'd have to penetrate the missile facility (not less than 12 hours work) without setting off any alarms and without any of the heavy equipment being noticed be the frequent roving patrols. Penetrating the LCC would not give anyone "access" to the warheads, as the LCC did not control the locks at the missile site, they just monitored them.
The only significant risk of the warhead falling in the "wrong hands" was during transport, and I can speak from personal experience that those movements were exceptionally well prepared monitored, and armed, with air support close by at all times.
I've owned and driven a 2004 Toyota Prius for 3 months now, and am currently in the middle of a trip from Kansas City to North Carolina, loaded with 4 people and a couple of weeks of clothes, across the Blue Ridge Mountains at 75 miles per hour. So far, it's averaged over 48 miles per gallon under these conditions up and down mountains and all. During my normal commutes at home (60 miles each day) it averages 53 to 55 mpg on each tank of gas.
The 2004 Prius does what it claims, at least in my experience (7500 miles so far). The Honda hybrids are a clearly inferior design, and it's not surprising that the Civics are failing to meet their EPA numbers. The newer Prius, however, is quite another story.
There's a legend that Microsoft actually encountered this back with Microsoft Word 1.0 - it formatted the hard drive if the CRC of the program changed. Bad karma there, hosing innocent users if they got infected. (BTW - I've seen Vesselin Bontchev reference it here and other places, but it could just be he picked up a convenient rumor. Anyone have verification of this story?
It's real, alright. I saw it happen in at least two cases where the drives were formatted because the "copy check" incorrectly fired. The cause turned out to be having the software installed on a partition > 32mb in size; at the time M$ did not support that directly, and assumed that if the numbers came back out of their bounds something had to be inllegal. It caused quite a public relations mess for Microsoft, and they backed the check out very quickly under public backlash.
What a load of crap. Try walking into any big company and suggesting that you should be able to run linux on your desk.
I work for one of the 4 largest telecoms in the US, and there are quite a few developers here, (including myself) who do use linux on our desktops, and our portables. Not common for the end users yet, and not all developers, but many and more each month.
Perhaps you should check out your definition of "extraordinarily pro-linux".... it seems a bit flawed to me.
I DO have a few machines that can't recompile a kernel to save their lives. Take the exact goddamn makefile and code tree, and it's compiling on my P4 desktop, but not the Celeron fileserver OR the PII 266 laptop.
Easy son... if you'd have read the kernel README (in with that source code you are complaining about), you'd know you need to configure to match the hardware you'll be building on. You can not just carry a make file from one hardware platform to a dissimilar one.
BTW, I've compiled on all those platforms with no issues recently. Next time, RTFM or remember it better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!
it's a great idea, but out in the real world, people use commercial software. If kids aren't educated in how to use it, they won't be able to compete.
I believe you are not thinking this out completely. By the time the kids entering the job market, whichever specific software package they happened to use in school will be obsoleted or morphed beyond recognition. In fact, your argument only stands if we assume the students can not or will not learn beyond that which they were taught in school. Were this true, most of us would not be able to hold a job today; technology would have already overrun us.
The important point is that we need to teach the principles and techniques of computer use, not any particular software package. OSS is quite well suited to teaching how to use a computer, word processing, programming or almost any other computer based task. Why spend more money?
If your firm pursues the threatened licensing on JPEG at this late date, I'll be forced to regard your firm as another of the those of lax ethicial standards uncovered in recent months. If you had intended to charge for JPEG usage you should have made that clear from the first; to pursue this approach very much appears to be a "bait and switch" tactic unworthy of an honest firm.
As such, pusuit of JPEG licensing at this point will result in efforts on my part to ensure that no Forgent Networks products are used in any system or business unit I have influence with. I can not in good faith expose my firm to to the risks policies like yours bring to the table.
Once upon a time (circa 1986) a firm known as SEA had a patent on a software compression technology that dominated the market. Businesses paid large amounts of money to use SEA's ARC, and private individuals used a freeware package known as pkarc to read and create their own archives. SEA decided that the "free" usage was costing them money and started threatening to sue people using the free product for non-commerical use. I was a BBS operator in that era.. within a month the now famous "zip" compression format was created and released. Within 6 months ARC compression was virtually extinct in commerce and popular use; today only us oldtimers know that it even existed.
Those who do not know history are doomed to recreate it. You are now warned... there is always another company and product that can take your place. All your firm can gain from this unethical bait and switch is bad publicity and the loss of value.
Folks, evolutionary pressures exists even in our field and Mr. Schwartz has simply failed to make the cut for the next generation. In the wild if a creature gets so focused on personal gain that it forgets to watch out for threats it's gone. Same here; He got so busy looking for next month's income that he lost it all.
At best Mr. Schwartz is a modern example of foolishness in action, and it bit him sorely. Cracking passwords without authorization to gain unathorized access to a system is _cracking_, period. There was nothing ethical or acceptable about it. He himself has placed himself at the same level as the rest of the script kiddies.
This man is not a peer, he's a fool. Learn from his mistakes and move on.
I've built and deployed several commercial sites in the last 3 years and currently I do intranet application design for a large telecommunication company, so I have some little experience in this.
I started development on my projects in Perl and moved to C++. Frankly, if you have a good string class and a lib to provide functions such as argument parsing (I wrote my own) I see no advantage to Perl for CGI at all.
IMHO, Perl is a great write once, read seldom language. Unfortunately the real-world model of web development is write it, change it change it change it as the client and the user community's expectations evolve. A properly designed and structured C++ code set is much easier to maintain in this type of environment.
Recently, I've been using PHP3 for the more simple pages, and reserving C++ for the heavy duty work. PHP is a great big hammer for the routine form processing or query results display and I highly recommend it in those situtations. However, I won't go back to Perl in any case, and I'd recommend you don't go there yourself.
--------- confined though we are, infinity dwells within. --------
Lucent has it's wavelan series of products, and the picture of the Apple "AirPort" looks exactly like the wavelan OEM card with a new label on it.
Since there are wavelan cards for standard PCI slots and hubs for eithernet available from lucent, all we need is a driver (or at least the specs from lucent) to make it work. Does anyone have a source for either?
Slashdot Mirror
Will 2133 do? :) Been here a long time....
Of course people want to hide things, it's human nature. Unfortunately, folks, what you do in public is public. Period. If you are in a public area, or where you can be seen from one, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. It seems rather silly to complain about privacy violations when one acts publicly.
I can see no reason why a camera in a public area violates anyone's rights any more than a policeman watching from the corner. As a matter of fact, the camera is less likely to bear false witness, which is the only valid concern in this case.
I am slowly convinced, that any larger piece of C(++)-Code which handles strings, has in fact at least one Buffer overflow.
C and C++ are not the same language, nor is it truly accurate to consider C++ a superset of C. C++ written using it's native string type (std::string) instead of the legacy C strings is quite safe and easy to use. Only those who who don't know C++ have trouble writing safe code in it.
It's possible to write bad code in any language; for those who don't really know the language it becomes probable.
That's because there is no military applications. You don't want the soldiers to become fearless, because if they do, they might say: "This war is wrong. I used to be too afraid to do anything about it, but now I suddenly feel fearless, and will get the heck away from here !" Basically, fearless soldiers will refuse to obey when given orders that they think are wrong, and cannot be forced to obey by fear of punishment.
This is so incorrect as to lead me to guess that the original poster either has not served in the armed services or had a bad experience while doing so. In a successful military, soldiers serve because they believe, not because they are forced to. This is exactly why, even in this era of recruiting problems, the US military still strongly prefers to avoid the draft. It is choice, not fear, that makes fighters effective.
In short, perhaps if someone could gain access to a capsule they could have commanded a lauch, but they'd have had to subvert 2 complete LCC crews to command an immediate launch, and that's just not likely, even if the PALs were not active. One LCC could not command an immediate launch, and would have been overriden by the other capsules in the flight had it attempted to. As discussed above, penetrations of the control center or the actual missile facility could not yield results before an overwhelming response ended the threat. The way we were watched (and the capsule crews were more watched than we were) I doubt four people so profoundly without anyone noticing.
As for the "bad guys" gaining access to a warhead from the missile site... not a chance. First, to do that they'd have to penetrate the missile facility (not less than 12 hours work) without setting off any alarms and without any of the heavy equipment being noticed be the frequent roving patrols. Penetrating the LCC would not give anyone "access" to the warheads, as the LCC did not control the locks at the missile site, they just monitored them.
The only significant risk of the warhead falling in the "wrong hands" was during transport, and I can speak from personal experience that those movements were exceptionally well prepared monitored, and armed, with air support close by at all times.
I've owned and driven a 2004 Toyota Prius for 3 months now, and am currently in the middle of a trip from Kansas City to North Carolina, loaded with 4 people and a couple of weeks of clothes, across the Blue Ridge Mountains at 75 miles per hour. So far, it's averaged over 48 miles per gallon under these conditions up and down mountains and all. During my normal commutes at home (60 miles each day) it averages 53 to 55 mpg on each tank of gas.
The 2004 Prius does what it claims, at least in my experience (7500 miles so far). The Honda hybrids are a clearly inferior design, and it's not surprising that the Civics are failing to meet their EPA numbers. The newer Prius, however, is quite another story.
It's real, alright. I saw it happen in at least two cases where the drives were formatted because the "copy check" incorrectly fired. The cause turned out to be having the software installed on a partition > 32mb in size; at the time M$ did not support that directly, and assumed that if the numbers came back out of their bounds something had to be inllegal. It caused quite a public relations mess for Microsoft, and they backed the check out very quickly under public backlash.
I work for one of the 4 largest telecoms in the US, and there are quite a few developers here, (including myself) who do use linux on our desktops, and our portables. Not common for the end users yet, and not all developers, but many and more each month.
Perhaps you should check out your definition of "extraordinarily pro-linux".... it seems a bit flawed to me.
I DO have a few machines that can't recompile a kernel to save their lives. Take the exact goddamn makefile and code tree, and it's compiling on my P4 desktop, but not the Celeron fileserver OR the PII 266 laptop.
Easy son... if you'd have read the kernel README (in with that source code you are complaining about), you'd know you need to configure to match the hardware you'll be building on. You can not just carry a make file from one hardware platform to a dissimilar one.
BTW, I've compiled on all those platforms with no issues recently. Next time, RTFM or remember it better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!
it's a great idea, but out in the real world, people use commercial software. If kids aren't educated in how to use it, they won't be able to compete.
I believe you are not thinking this out completely. By the time the kids entering the job market, whichever specific software package they happened to use in school will be obsoleted or morphed beyond recognition. In fact, your argument only stands if we assume the students can not or will not learn beyond that which they were taught in school. Were this true, most of us would not be able to hold a job today; technology would have already overrun us.
The important point is that we need to teach the principles and techniques of computer use, not any particular software package. OSS is quite well suited to teaching how to use a computer, word processing, programming or almost any other computer based task. Why spend more money?
Just for the record:
If your firm pursues the threatened licensing on JPEG at this late date, I'll be forced to regard your firm as another of the those of lax ethicial standards uncovered in recent months. If you had intended to charge for JPEG usage you should have made that clear from the first; to pursue this approach very much appears to be a "bait and switch" tactic unworthy of an honest firm.
As such, pusuit of JPEG licensing at this point will result in efforts on my part to ensure that no Forgent Networks products are used in any system or business unit I have influence with. I can not in good faith expose my firm to to the risks policies like yours bring to the table.
Once upon a time (circa 1986) a firm known as SEA had a patent on a software compression technology that dominated the market. Businesses paid large amounts of money to use SEA's ARC, and private individuals used a freeware package known as pkarc to read and create their own archives. SEA decided that the "free" usage was costing them money and started threatening to sue people using the free product for non-commerical use. I was a BBS operator in that era.. within a month the now famous "zip" compression format was created and released. Within 6 months ARC compression was virtually extinct in commerce and popular use; today only us oldtimers know that it even existed.
Those who do not know history are doomed to recreate it. You are now warned... there is always another company and product that can take your place. All your firm can gain from this unethical bait and switch is bad publicity and the loss of value.
Folks, evolutionary pressures exists even in our field and Mr. Schwartz has simply failed to make the cut for the next generation. In the wild if a creature gets so focused on personal gain that it forgets to watch out for threats it's gone. Same here; He got so busy looking for next month's income that he lost it all.
At best Mr. Schwartz is a modern example of foolishness in action, and it bit him sorely. Cracking passwords without authorization to gain unathorized access to a system is _cracking_, period. There was nothing ethical or acceptable about it. He himself has placed himself at the same level as the rest of the script kiddies.
This man is not a peer, he's a fool. Learn from his mistakes and move on.
I've built and deployed several commercial sites in the last 3 years and currently I do intranet application design for a large telecommunication company, so I have some little experience in this.
I started development on my projects in Perl and moved to C++. Frankly, if you have a good string class and a lib to provide functions such as argument parsing (I wrote my own) I see no advantage to Perl for CGI at all.
IMHO, Perl is a great write once, read seldom language. Unfortunately the real-world model of web development is write it, change it change it change it as the client and the user community's expectations evolve. A properly designed and structured C++ code set is much easier to maintain in this type of environment.
Recently, I've been using PHP3 for the more simple pages, and reserving C++ for the heavy duty work. PHP is a great big hammer for the routine form processing or query results display and I highly recommend it in those situtations. However, I won't go back to Perl in any case, and I'd recommend you don't go there yourself.
---------
confined though we are,
infinity dwells within.
--------
Since there are wavelan cards for standard PCI slots and hubs for eithernet available from lucent, all we need is a driver (or at least the specs from lucent) to make it work. Does anyone have a source for either?