"Because he had a good agent, he had a good contract. Because he had a good contract, he was in Singapore an hour after the explosion. Most of him, anyway The Dutch surgeon liked to joke about that, how an unspecified percentage of Turner hadn't made it out of Palam International on that first flight and had to spend the night there in a shed, in a support vat.
It took the Dutchman and his team three months to put Turner together again. They cloned a square meter of skin for him, grew it on slabs of collagen and shark-cartilage polysaccharides They bought eyes and genitals on the open market The eyes were green."
Right. I guess he hasn't heard of a soldering iron.
Right. I guess you haven't heard about tamper-resistant hardware. When there'll be a solid block of resin sitting right on the neck of your monitor, I'll see how far your soldering iron will get you.
This stuff is expensive, though, so you'd better start saving for it!;-(
Thank you, I am quite aware of the difference between forwarding and redirecting.
Packets from me to battle.net are just forwarded (well, the source IP gets rewritten but still that's not really redirection). However because that box is a NAT box, packets from battle.net to me are actually redirected --they are sent to the NAT box's IP address and then the destination IP address is rewritten so that the packet gets delivered to one of my home machines with a different IP.
Finally if you check the licence agreement that comes with your Blizzard games you will see:
you are not entitled to: (iv) host or provide matchmaking services for the Program or emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by the Licensor in the network feature of the Program, though protocol emulation, tunneling, modifying or adding components to the Progran, use of a utility program or any other techniques now known or hereafter deceloped, for any purpose including, but not limited to network play over the Internet, network play utilising commercial or non-commercial gaming networks or as part of content aggregation networks withoug the Licensor prior written consent.
This is just wonderful. Let's see -- as an occasionally reasonable human being I have a NAT/firewall box sitting between the big bad 'net and my home machines. Now, part of the job of this box clearly is to redirect the communication protocols... through any other techniques... for any purpose.
I guess I am in breach of the license. Oooh, what should I do? Multiple-choice quiz: (1) Destroy my Diablo CD and send a panicked letter to Blizzard begging forgiveness; (2) Chuck the NAT/firewall box; (3) Loudly say FUCK THAT SHIT.
If that's not the case, then no "wiretap" has taken place--a party to the conversation turned over the logs to the police, and they are admissible at trial.
No. Read the story:
"Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties."
That doesn't make sense, of course -- the implication is that your own logs of your IM messages, for example, are "not legal" unless the other party consented to them. But, of course, since when law does have to make sense?
"Well," I have to ask, with a rather pensive look on my face. "If the people who designed and wrote the software can't find the bugs, what makes you think that throwing somebody at it in their spare cycles is going to help?
"Well", answer I without a pensive look, "I can find that bug because it's breaking my system right now and I can reproduce it. If I can reproduce it, I can trace it, and watch exactly what's happening in a debugger, and fix this statement in the code where the programmer assumed that nobody would select options foo and bar, while setting qux to 42 at the same time."
I am not going to be fixing bugs in other people's programs just so. I'll be fixing them when these bugs stare me in the face, and in these kinds of situations bug-hunting is not so terribly hard.
What I'd like is a series of books about computer languages that do not try to teach me programming and do not assume I am a moron. Oh yes, and are not bulky references to every single function call possible.
When I pick a new language (especially if it's just YAPL -- Yet Another Procedural Language -- of the C/C++/Perl/Java/etc. variety) I don't want to wade through pages and pages explaing basics of syntax -- I can pick it up quicky on my own. I also don't want to have if..then..else construct explained to me for the nth time, unless there is something fancy about it.
What I want is a conscise explanation of the mode of thinking that the language was designed to go with. I want to know which idioms people who write in that language use, and why *this* way of doing things is cooler/neater/a win. I want to get a feel for the language.
For example, in Perl the camel book, besides reference stuff, provides a lot of advice and examples of Ways Things Are Usually Done In Perl, along with explanations or at least hints why this is generally accepted to be The Right Thing. The camel book (and writings by Larry Wall in general) provide a wonderful feel for the flavor of Perl and why it's not just interpreted C with a loose syntax (we'll leave the fine distinction between Perl and line noise for another time).
I've been looking for a similar book about Java with utter lack of success. Either it's introduction to programming for novices, or a libraries' reference guide. The closest I've found was a book by Bruce Eckel -- Thinking in Java, I think it was called -- but even that wasn't all that good.
Lisp people understand perfectly that thinking while coding in Lisp is radically different from thinking while coding in C/C++/etc. I want these differences in thinking, in flavor, in idiom, to be shown to me for many different languages, starting from Java and Python and Eiffel, and ending with Haskell and Oberon and Intercal.
We couldn't just pretend that nothing happened. If we'd have done that, that plane that dropped in Pennsylvania would have hit its target
You are wrong. The plane that went down in PA didn't do so because of government security measures. This plane was brought down because passengers -- just regular people -- had cell phones, knew what happened to other planes, and decided to fight rather than be sheep.
There is a big difference between effective security and fascist nonsense that gets pushed onto us under the name of security.
Well, I'm not a big fan of chocolate, so down with the cookie site!!!
These are oatmeal-and-raisin cookies.;-)
I'm talking about constitutional rights.
First, privacy rights, insofar as they exist in the US, were derived by the Supreme Court from the "penumbra of rights" in the US Constitution. Given that there are no special rights for victims of violence (but you can derive them from "life, liberty,...") they are just as consitutional as the victim rights.
Second, Constitution defines the relationship of the government and the citizens. If someone mugs you in a dark alley, he does NOT infringe upon your constitutional rights (unless he as a government agent, that is).
He admitted to hacking...
You've read a Slashdot thread which referenced a news story which said that he admitted to defacing some web sites. Doesn't look much like good evidence to me. And in any case this is irrelevant to our discussion which is about whether people should be able to post violence-approving texts on the net. It doesn't make any difference if these people hack websites, subscribe to Playboy, or happen to have the first name of Ahmad.
Do you seriously think that hacking other people's sites and inciting people to violence is covered under the first amendment?
First, no -- but I never claimed that. Second, it depends. You might want to keep in mind that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech -- a web site devoted to making cookies doesn't really need consitutional protection.
The amendment no longer applies once you start affecting the rights of others
Not true in general. For example the free speech argument routinely trumps privacy rights for newsworthy events and/or people.
What this guy did was illegal, whatever you feel about the bomb recipe
I thought in the US the defendant was presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. You might at least have put an "IMHO" in there.
What if your child blew himself or another family member up because they saw this cool bomb recipe on the web? Would you be so pro his first amendment rights then?
Well, yes, actually I would. I may personally go and throttle the bastard, but that wouldn't change my position on the First Amendment one bit.
I don't buy your "surrender your freedom to get some security" argument.
Be realistic
I am quite realistic. But we are not talking about what the government is likely to do or what you can expect to get away with. We are talking, basically about right and wrong. The connection between what's stupid to do and what's morally wrong is not always that simple.
There is a very obvious line where "free speech" is no longer important. When you are actively inciting people to violence against each other, it becomes criminal.
Two words: "wartime propaganda".
If that's not inciting people to violence against each other, I don't know what is.
The site seemed to be advocating the use of violence to solve means. Information on how to cause havok and insitute anarchy doesnt sit well with me and I dont seem why this is an issue.
Well, it so happens that the founders of the US forgot to include "but not if it talks about violence" part when they were writing the First Amendment -- you know, the "free speech" one. Actually, it seems to me the were pretty violent guys themselves -- starting a war and all that.
And if that guy's site was the first one where the feds found the bomb-making informations on the 'net... [rolls his eyes]
How can they possibly suggest that I'm NOT ALLOWED to run a firewall? Especially seeing as how the freaking cable networks some of the worst offenders on portscans etc...
Nah, you don't understand. You see, a computer is really like a TV and the fine folks at Comcast want to help you use it appropriately. You are not supposed to do anything but consume entertainment (and pay for it), so be a good boy and behave.
As to a firewall, you only need one if you run servers, right? And you are not supposed to run any servers, it's right there in your TOS... Just think of the computer as a TV, it helps. If you don't have any open ports, you don't need a firewall, right?
Whaddaya mean, Windows has open ports? Nope, couldn't be, Windows is a proper operating system and will not have such indecent thing as open ports, it's not like this hacker system, Lainuks. Just shut up and go away, will ya?
Ok, there really needs to be a peer to Godwin's Law which replaces "mentioning Nazism" with "prefacing the comment with a recantation of a lusty love affair the author had in their youth"
Especially if that love affair was with a naked and petrified Natalie Portman...
To be frank, if it weren't for the heat that nvidia cards produce, I'd probably get one. I just can't afford to have my server go down because a GPU overheated and pumped the case tempurature to 120 degrees
Just what kind of a server do you have? GeForce cards have a single purpose in life, and that is to run 3D games. Period.
If you are running what we usually call a server (you know, the one that cannot go down), why in the world would you need a GeForce in it? And if it's a gaming machine, it CAN go down. Maybe you don't think so, but trust me, it won't crash that strange thing we call reality.;-)
I don't know about keychains, but a regular part of my bag is a small box (say 5 x 3 x 0.75 in) that just plugs in (via cable) into any USB port. USB 2.0 capable and all in all cost about $200. I am quite happy with it.
Eh? What? Size? Oh, it's 20 Gb:-)
Actually, this is just a box with IDE <-> USB electronics into which you can put any standard laptop hard drive (and I put a 20Gb one in). Draws power from the USB port and is truly plug-and-play. Highly convenient. Recommended.
Yes, absolutely, a Federal Judge should have this much power. It's one of the best checks against the possibility of tyranny.
Just remember this when some hung over judge from South Dakota orders the whole Internet shut down because, say, it's not all that hard to "repeatedly access, modify, and even create data" for AOL accounts.
Slashdot Mirror
Topozone (www.topozone.com) is much better.
"Because he had a good agent, he had a good contract. Because he had a good contract, he was in Singapore an hour after the explosion. Most of him, anyway The Dutch surgeon liked to joke about that, how an unspecified percentage of Turner hadn't made it out of Palam International on that first flight and had to spend the night there in a shed, in a support vat.
It took the Dutchman and his team three months to put Turner together again. They cloned a square meter of skin for him, grew it on slabs of collagen and shark-cartilage polysaccharides They bought eyes and genitals on the open market The eyes were green."
William Gibson Count Zero
As a girl I know said:
"What do you mean he doesn't have e-mail? E-mail is what separates us from the barbarians, isn't it?"
Right. I guess he hasn't heard of a soldering iron.
;-(
Right. I guess you haven't heard about tamper-resistant hardware. When there'll be a solid block of resin sitting right on the neck of your monitor, I'll see how far your soldering iron will get you.
This stuff is expensive, though, so you'd better start saving for it!
these premium Japanese instruments showcase stunning Star Wars graphics created by using a revolutionary computer controlled painting process
Is the increase in ads on Slashdot now extends to putting advertising copy into the text of the story?
Thank you, I am quite aware of the difference between forwarding and redirecting.
Packets from me to battle.net are just forwarded (well, the source IP gets rewritten but still that's not really redirection). However because that box is a NAT box, packets from battle.net to me are actually redirected --they are sent to the NAT box's IP address and then the destination IP address is rewritten so that the packet gets delivered to one of my home machines with a different IP.
Finally if you check the licence agreement that comes with your Blizzard games you will see:
... through any other techniques ... for any purpose.
you are not entitled to:
(iv) host or provide matchmaking services for the Program or emulate or redirect the communication protocols used by the Licensor in the network feature of the Program, though protocol emulation, tunneling, modifying or adding components to the Progran, use of a utility program or any other techniques now known or hereafter deceloped, for any purpose including, but not limited to network play over the Internet, network play utilising commercial or non-commercial gaming networks or as part of content aggregation networks withoug the Licensor prior written consent.
This is just wonderful. Let's see -- as an occasionally reasonable human being I have a NAT/firewall box sitting between the big bad 'net and my home machines. Now, part of the job of this box clearly is to redirect the communication protocols
I guess I am in breach of the license. Oooh, what should I do? Multiple-choice quiz: (1) Destroy my Diablo CD and send a panicked letter to Blizzard begging forgiveness; (2) Chuck the NAT/firewall box; (3) Loudly say FUCK THAT SHIT.
Hard choice, really.
Remember to be polite, you'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar
I'm not really interested in catching flies, I am interested in smacking them dead. And I can find better uses for honey than to feed it to flies.
Somebody should hand the NintenDUH people a cluestick.
Now, LART would be a much better thing to hand to -- no, to apply to these guys...
If that's not the case, then no "wiretap" has taken place--a party to the conversation turned over the logs to the police, and they are admissible at trial.
No. Read the story:
"Though federal law only requires the consent of one person before a telephone call or Internet communication can be recorded, Pennsylvania and 11 other states require the consent of all parties."
That doesn't make sense, of course -- the implication is that your own logs of your IM messages, for example, are "not legal" unless the other party consented to them. But, of course, since when law does have to make sense?
"Well," I have to ask, with a rather pensive look on my face. "If the people who designed and wrote the software can't find the bugs, what makes you think that throwing somebody at it in their spare cycles is going to help?
"Well", answer I without a pensive look, "I can find that bug because it's breaking my system right now and I can reproduce it. If I can reproduce it, I can trace it, and watch exactly what's happening in a debugger, and fix this statement in the code where the programmer assumed that nobody would select options foo and bar, while setting qux to 42 at the same time."
I am not going to be fixing bugs in other people's programs just so. I'll be fixing them when these bugs stare me in the face, and in these kinds of situations bug-hunting is not so terribly hard.
What I'd like is a series of books about computer languages that do not try to teach me programming and do not assume I am a moron. Oh yes, and are not bulky references to every single function call possible.
When I pick a new language (especially if it's just YAPL -- Yet Another Procedural Language -- of the C/C++/Perl/Java/etc. variety) I don't want to wade through pages and pages explaing basics of syntax -- I can pick it up quicky on my own. I also don't want to have if..then..else construct explained to me for the nth time, unless there is something fancy about it.
What I want is a conscise explanation of the mode of thinking that the language was designed to go with. I want to know which idioms people who write in that language use, and why *this* way of doing things is cooler/neater/a win. I want to get a feel for the language.
For example, in Perl the camel book, besides reference stuff, provides a lot of advice and examples of Ways Things Are Usually Done In Perl, along with explanations or at least hints why this is generally accepted to be The Right Thing. The camel book (and writings by Larry Wall in general) provide a wonderful feel for the flavor of Perl and why it's not just interpreted C with a loose syntax (we'll leave the fine distinction between Perl and line noise for another time).
I've been looking for a similar book about Java with utter lack of success. Either it's introduction to programming for novices, or a libraries' reference guide. The closest I've found was a book by Bruce Eckel -- Thinking in Java, I think it was called -- but even that wasn't all that good.
Lisp people understand perfectly that thinking while coding in Lisp is radically different from thinking while coding in C/C++/etc. I want these differences in thinking, in flavor, in idiom, to be shown to me for many different languages, starting from Java and Python and Eiffel, and ending with Haskell and Oberon and Intercal.
One word:
Bloomberg
We couldn't just pretend that nothing happened. If we'd have done that, that plane that dropped in Pennsylvania would have hit its target
You are wrong. The plane that went down in PA didn't do so because of government security measures. This plane was brought down because passengers -- just regular people -- had cell phones, knew what happened to other planes, and decided to fight rather than be sheep.
There is a big difference between effective security and fascist nonsense that gets pushed onto us under the name of security.
Well, I'm not a big fan of chocolate, so down with the cookie site!!!
;-)
...") they are just as consitutional as the victim rights.
These are oatmeal-and-raisin cookies.
I'm talking about constitutional rights.
First, privacy rights, insofar as they exist in the US, were derived by the Supreme Court from the "penumbra of rights" in the US Constitution. Given that there are no special rights for victims of violence (but you can derive them from "life, liberty,
Second, Constitution defines the relationship of the government and the citizens. If someone mugs you in a dark alley, he does NOT infringe upon your constitutional rights (unless he as a government agent, that is).
He admitted to hacking...
You've read a Slashdot thread which referenced a news story which said that he admitted to defacing some web sites. Doesn't look much like good evidence to me. And in any case this is irrelevant to our discussion which is about whether people should be able to post violence-approving texts on the net. It doesn't make any difference if these people hack websites, subscribe to Playboy, or happen to have the first name of Ahmad.
Do you seriously think that hacking other people's sites and inciting people to violence is covered under the first amendment?
First, no -- but I never claimed that. Second, it depends. You might want to keep in mind that the purpose of the First Amendment is to protect unpopular speech -- a web site devoted to making cookies doesn't really need consitutional protection.
The amendment no longer applies once you start affecting the rights of others
Not true in general. For example the free speech argument routinely trumps privacy rights for newsworthy events and/or people.
What this guy did was illegal, whatever you feel about the bomb recipe
I thought in the US the defendant was presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law. You might at least have put an "IMHO" in there.
What if your child blew himself or another family member up because they saw this cool bomb recipe on the web? Would you be so pro his first amendment rights then?
Well, yes, actually I would. I may personally go and throttle the bastard, but that wouldn't change my position on the First Amendment one bit.
I don't buy your "surrender your freedom to get some security" argument.
Be realistic
I am quite realistic. But we are not talking about what the government is likely to do or what you can expect to get away with. We are talking, basically about right and wrong. The connection between what's stupid to do and what's morally wrong is not always that simple.
There is a very obvious line where "free speech" is no longer important. When you are actively inciting people to violence against each other, it becomes criminal.
Two words: "wartime propaganda".
If that's not inciting people to violence against each other, I don't know what is.
The site seemed to be advocating the use of violence to solve means. Information on how to cause havok and insitute anarchy doesnt sit well with me and I dont seem why this is an issue.
Well, it so happens that the founders of the US forgot to include "but not if it talks about violence" part when they were writing the First Amendment -- you know, the "free speech" one. Actually, it seems to me the were pretty violent guys themselves -- starting a war and all that.
And if that guy's site was the first one where the feds found the bomb-making informations on the 'net... [rolls his eyes]
How can they possibly suggest that I'm NOT ALLOWED to run a firewall? Especially seeing as how the freaking cable networks some of the worst offenders on portscans etc...
Nah, you don't understand. You see, a computer is really like a TV and the fine folks at Comcast want to help you use it appropriately. You are not supposed to do anything but consume entertainment (and pay for it), so be a good boy and behave.
As to a firewall, you only need one if you run servers, right? And you are not supposed to run any servers, it's right there in your TOS... Just think of the computer as a TV, it helps. If you don't have any open ports, you don't need a firewall, right?
Whaddaya mean, Windows has open ports? Nope, couldn't be, Windows is a proper operating system and will not have such indecent thing as open ports, it's not like this hacker system, Lainuks. Just shut up and go away, will ya?
Can you imagine what would happen if this technology were used to manufacture destructive little nanobots that couldn't be seen, but could be inhaled?
Yes.
Moreover, people with a much better imagination and command of language than I already imagined this:
Neal Stephenson "The Diamond Age".
Ok, there really needs to be a peer to Godwin's Law which replaces "mentioning Nazism" with "prefacing the comment with a recantation of a lusty love affair the author had in their youth"
Especially if that love affair was with a naked and petrified Natalie Portman...
To be frank, if it weren't for the heat that nvidia cards produce, I'd probably get one. I just can't afford to have my server go down because a GPU overheated and pumped the case tempurature to 120 degrees
;-)
Just what kind of a server do you have? GeForce cards have a single purpose in life, and that is to run 3D games. Period.
If you are running what we usually call a server (you know, the one that cannot go down), why in the world would you need a GeForce in it? And if it's a gaming machine, it CAN go down. Maybe you don't think so, but trust me, it won't crash that strange thing we call reality.
I don't know about keychains, but a regular part of my bag is a small box (say 5 x 3 x 0.75 in) that just plugs in (via cable) into any USB port. USB 2.0 capable and all in all cost about $200. I am quite happy with it.
:-)
Eh? What? Size? Oh, it's 20 Gb
Actually, this is just a box with IDE <-> USB electronics into which you can put any standard laptop hard drive (and I put a 20Gb one in). Draws power from the USB port and is truly plug-and-play. Highly convenient. Recommended.
So what exactly does it do that my PC doesn't?
(in case you are wondering, yes, my video card has a TV-out).
Yes, absolutely, a Federal Judge should have this much power. It's one of the best checks against the possibility of tyranny.
Just remember this when some hung over judge from South Dakota orders the whole Internet shut down because, say, it's not all that hard to "repeatedly access, modify, and even create data" for AOL accounts.