Do they really? I've often wondered about that. It seems so ironic that you could set out to do a security update and open yourself wide open for a good shafting in doing so.
I'm not sure it's good to know that my paranoia is reality on that one.
First, you seem to consider yourself an "average user" which, from your comments, I can assure you that you are not. You're more educated, more aware of what goes on with your computer than the average person at the keyboard.
I am not an expert in these things, so I won't bother to try to figure out how they can be done. I do know that much is possible. As an example, when I first left the BBS's and got on the internet I received an email warning me about an email going around that would wipe your hard drive clean if you opened it. I passed it on to my step-father, an engineer for the Navy working on a NASA base. He passed around and I received several replies from Navy, NASA, USGS and Air Force computer experts who told me not to worry because such a thing just wasn't possible. Do you agree with them today? 100 years ago most experts would have told you that landing on the moon was not possible. Nor was breaking the sound barrier. Please don't limit your imagination. I can assure you that the sick fscks out there aren't so limited.
Look beyond things transmitted by email. Every day people find flaws in your favorite operating systems including ways to gain root access and do as they please. And every day someone is fixing that kind of problem. Every day we learn something new which often requires us to change software and change the way we run it to improve security.
You sound very confident that you are secure, that it can't happen to you. I think you have a false sense of security. If you and your system were perfect, totally secure and immune to tampering by someone from the outside....well, you would have solved the problem for everyone. You'll be in high demand.
Oh, and about that plain text email....yeah, you do study all the source for your email reader before you compile it. Right?
If you've never heard of a Linux or Unix program or script being compromised, you lead a sheltered life. So you review the source from start to finish before you complile and only run binaries from a trusted source...which of course could never be compromised. Great.
And I know that it's impossible to find any flaws in Linux based software that could be taken advantage of by someone of ill intent. But I'm not sure that the malicious coders recognize that as truth.
But as the user bases grows there are more and more users who arent as cautious as you. And, as the user base grows, there will be more of those sick fscks looking to cause you harm.
That's ok, don't worry about it. They usually end up insulting themselves with stupid statements, poor products, lack of security, etc. So your comments are no big deal, don't worry about it.
Or are you afraid they'll send lawyers after you??
Actually it should work just fine. The problem isn't the total amount of data being transferred, just that it transfers so fast. If the transfers are done at a slower rate then that leaves that much more capacity for others at any given time.
So what you say is true and a good thing. People don't sit and wait so they won't mind if the transfer takes longer. Meanwhile the provider has more bandwidth available for other customers at any given time.
"Ahh, looks like the Republicans have got mod points again. Exactly what part of the political analysis do they consider to be wrong?"
I read your post completely and contemplated each of your points. They all seem quite valid and interesting. But your first comment, the one quoted above about Republicans, still doesn't make any sense to me.
Being a geek is a good thing. But it doesn't mean that you have to make things more complicated than they need to be.
You obviously need voice communication without (expensive) signalling. So analog voice will do just fine. Forget computer or networking based ideas, going there is only going to sidetrack you from your goal. Remember that this is about getting your theater group to communicate, not about playing with geek toys.
Someone here has already mentioned 49 MHz headsets. Radio Shack and Maxon are common brands and those should work great for you. But if you need something with a little less interference then......
FRS, or Family Radio Service is another option. The radios are fairly inexpensive and can be had for $30 each or so. They offer multiple channels and CTCSS tones (if you don't know what that means either RTFM or get back to me, it's worth your time to understand it). Those should give you the range you're looking for. You won't get interference from businesses there, that frequency band is for non-commercial use. And if you do find someone interfering then gather information and turn them in to the FCC and your interference problem is gone.
Beyond that you could go for commercial land mobile gear. It works like FRS but you have to license a channel. You do get a lot more power and range. The drawback is that the school will have to apply for a license and that takes time. You'll have to budget $300 on up for each radio with the accessories you'll want.
If it were me I would try FRS first, a trial run with a couple of borrowed radios.
Ok, but the ad agency, suppose them boys got em a site admin? Ya rekon them boys got unlimited bandwidth and aint gotta worry about it?
Yes, depending on the program someone is paying for that bandwidth and most of the time the agency hosting the advertising will work that into the cost of placing an ad with them. Bigger ad, higher cost. A full video commercial with 100K deliveries a day isn't going to be cheap.
That does an interesting thing. As an advertiser you want to reach me, the consumer. You want to impress me so you go all out. Here I am paying my part of the freight and what you've just done is slow me down and cost me more money. When I finally see your ad I am neither impressed or amused.
Back to these non-ad-agency-site-admins. They have content they want the world to see and it costs them money to deliver it, we've established that. Why? Why do they want you to see their content? If it's a religious push then the church should pay. If it's information used for education then that should be part of the cost of the schools business and factored into tuition. If it's a commercial entitiy providing support for one of their products then that's a cost of doing business and/or they can have a subscriber type service.
Greed is about the only reason I see for these site admins to whore themselves out to an ad agency. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a little greed, just that it isn't necessary to provide content on the web.
Who said they don't have bandwidth costs? The analogy was made using the television industry, and I think that's a good one. There are obviously costs associated with producing anything like a television show or a web site, I didn't dispute that.
What I said was that the internet user pays the freight of getting the content. That content is, and should be, paid for by any number of other methods. Possibilities include subscription, donation, at the expense of the producer or even by...yes....advertising.
Next time you speak to those millions of site admins who are so concerned about their high bandwidth costs, tell them hi for me. You might also remind them that they can cut a huge chunk of bandwidth by reducing the size of their advertising.
You want to talk bandwidth? This whole thing is about ad agencies who want to push full length video commercials. I can't imagine that your concerned site admin buddies are too thilled about paying for the bandwidth required for that....unless they make some serious money on it. Now imagine me sitting here and paying for the bandwidth to receive it. I'm not making any money on it and it's not saving me money, it's just costing me money. Just how thrilled should I feel?
Part of what made Trek so great was that you could sit down to a single episode and watch a story. The writer picked and issue, wrote a story about it, made his point and you had something to think about.
Enterprise doesn't work that way. The way it's written you lose track of where you're at if you miss an episode. For those of us who aren't die hard trekkies (oh, now I've done it) that can happen. The show is in a crappy time slot and many of us don't own Tivo or whatever. So I missed a couple of episodes, finally caught one and was totally lost on the story line. That really doesn't encourage me to tune in next week.
I'm going to agree with the comments about the breasts and lather. I'm all for seeing a nice set of tits, don't get me wrong on that. But it doesn't do anything for the story. If I want tits I can tune an adult channel or surf pr0n. When I sit down and tune in Enterprise I'm expecting good science fiction...and so far I'm sorely disappointed.
Star Trek was something Rodenbery used to get people to think about the issues of the day while entertaining them. It was good at that. Notice that it was similar to other hits of the period (Gunsmoke, Ponderosa, etc) and they wern't serials either.
To recap, my advice for the producers:
1) Change the format of the show, it should be a collection of related episodes, not a serial.
2) Tackle the issues of the day, stick your necks out a bit.
3) Quit flaunting the tits and ass. By all means keep them in the show, just quit trying to use them to get people to tune in.
4) Fight for a better time slot. Then go forth and promote the hell out of it and remind people to tune in at that time to see the new version of the show that doesn't suck.
Not that they'll listen. I'm afraid it's too far gone at this point. Even the geeks living in their mothers basements have lost faith and interest.
Bzzzzzt! That answer is incorrect Carnildo, but thanks for playing our game.
Paying your monthly bill to your ISP is exactly paying the freight. You are paying for transportation of data....the freight as it were.
What you are not paying for is content and that is the issue.
The guy who made the TV comment didn't get it either. In this modern age the "freight" is usually paid in the form of a cable or satelite bill or perhaps a TV translator district donation. In some cases the cost of the freight is built into the cost of advertising on the station, but that is only true of your local channels on their main transmitter. The content of television is paid for by other methods, usually advertising, subscription (think HBO) or donation (think PBS).
Killing the popup/under isn't enough, it doesn't get the point across. You need to provide the consumer with some tools.
Start with something in the sidebar that shows a list of companies that advertised in popup/under windows. Scan the windows before killing them to provide the information. This way the consumer knows which companies to shun for bad advertising practice without having to actually endure the ads.
Then, using that information, send an automatic email to the corporate headquarters of the company that wants you to buy thier product. In the browser settings the user should have a place to customize this email. It should say something to the effect of "You put a popup/under on my computer and that is shameful. Because you stole my bandwidth for rude advertising I will not be buying your product until you assure me that you have ceased the practice." Return receipt requested.
Next, your browser created database of popup/under pushers should automatically be forwarded to a worldwide clearinghouse. Everybodies data would be consolidated into a large database and the results displayed in a web page of shame. This clearinghouse would also send automatic email and snail mail to the corporations who push the most. This service could be paid by subscription or by paypal donation...but it would never advertise other than being mentioned in the browser help files and configuration menu.
Just like the dog, you keyed in when someone used the term liberal and went off. You were so blinded by your rage that you missed the point that the press was to thank for using the term and passing judgement on this plan for the space program rather than simply reporting news.
"...outlining a costly new effort to return Americans to the moon..."
How wonderful. Someone at the AP has already done the math for us and determined that this effort is "costly."
Outfuckingstanding. Now how come all they do is whine about how we have a deficit rather than reporting on how we can eliminate it. They seem to have all the answers.
And then you have all the liberals bashing the plan because we need the money on the war for terror. Funny how they didn't support that war until we wanted to spend money on the space program.
Might as well give up now and call it a day. The AP says it's too costly so we aren't going to get enough benefit out of it.
"there is a large percentage of the population that I have no desire to see naked."
I agree. There is also a large portion of the population whos dress and jewelry offends me. Amazingly enough there is nothing that can be done about that since they are not naked.
I have a difficult time understanding how it's ok to discriminate against nudity but not ok to discriminate against clothed people with metal stuck through their noses/tongues/eyebrows/etc/all-of-the-above.
Waste Management has a deal where I live. For $15 per month they come every week and collect a 92 gal. size can of anything I put in there. No questions asked. I've put old electronics in there. Gone. Dirty diapers. Gone. Old newspapers. Gone. Dead cat. Gone.
Keep in mind that if you turn something in for recycling, it might not be very friendly to the environment. Paper is a good example. Also, grouping things together like that can be a bad thing because then you get high concentrations of stuff in the landfill or incinerator whereas if you just throw it in the garbage the stuff is spread out and doesn't do quite the damage.
I recently purchased two Gateway laptops and didn't know what to get to put them in. I got one with the "comes with it" attache and one with the Targis backpack.
I like the Targis backpack so much that I've gone and ordered one for the other laptop. I carry it everywhere, even if I don't need the laptop. There is plenty of padding build in and the storage is very well thought out.
Dude! What the hell are you talking about? You've got to have some serious issues if you can't mount something correctly in a relay rack. Center the load, zip in four screws from the front and, sometimes, four from the back. If you've centered your load properly those bottom two screws will hold it forever, or at least until you put the top two in. If the equipment provides for rear screws you always use them as well (like power supplies).
And who the hell is this "guy in back" anyway? You make me jealous, wish I had help. I've built entire cellular telephone sites and radio repeater sites putting things in racks and rarely have help. I've even been able to mount 75 lb power supplies in relay racks by myself without damaging anything.
I know you must have been shooting for "funny" but someone modded you up as "informative" and someone is going to get the wrong idea. Relay racks will work fine for his application.
By the way, you do know that they make four point relay racks, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. And not only will you have bad, sloppy programmers, there will always be programmers without ethics.
:)
Unless anyone has an idea for enforcing ethics via the languages.
You think you have to do all that to compromise your system?
Better think again.
Oh, I love stuff like this. Elaborate!
Do they really? I've often wondered about that. It seems so ironic that you could set out to do a security update and open yourself wide open for a good shafting in doing so.
I'm not sure it's good to know that my paranoia is reality on that one.
First, you seem to consider yourself an "average user" which, from your comments, I can assure you that you are not. You're more educated, more aware of what goes on with your computer than the average person at the keyboard.
I am not an expert in these things, so I won't bother to try to figure out how they can be done. I do know that much is possible. As an example, when I first left the BBS's and got on the internet I received an email warning me about an email going around that would wipe your hard drive clean if you opened it. I passed it on to my step-father, an engineer for the Navy working on a NASA base. He passed around and I received several replies from Navy, NASA, USGS and Air Force computer experts who told me not to worry because such a thing just wasn't possible. Do you agree with them today? 100 years ago most experts would have told you that landing on the moon was not possible. Nor was breaking the sound barrier. Please don't limit your imagination. I can assure you that the sick fscks out there aren't so limited.
Look beyond things transmitted by email. Every day people find flaws in your favorite operating systems including ways to gain root access and do as they please. And every day someone is fixing that kind of problem. Every day we learn something new which often requires us to change software and change the way we run it to improve security.
You sound very confident that you are secure, that it can't happen to you. I think you have a false sense of security. If you and your system were perfect, totally secure and immune to tampering by someone from the outside....well, you would have solved the problem for everyone. You'll be in high demand.
Oh, and about that plain text email....yeah, you do study all the source for your email reader before you compile it. Right?
If you've never heard of a Linux or Unix program or script being compromised, you lead a sheltered life. So you review the source from start to finish before you complile and only run binaries from a trusted source...which of course could never be compromised. Great.
And I know that it's impossible to find any flaws in Linux based software that could be taken advantage of by someone of ill intent. But I'm not sure that the malicious coders recognize that as truth.
But as the user bases grows there are more and more users who arent as cautious as you. And, as the user base grows, there will be more of those sick fscks looking to cause you harm.
"I don't mean that to insult MS"
That's ok, don't worry about it. They usually end up insulting themselves with stupid statements, poor products, lack of security, etc. So your comments are no big deal, don't worry about it.
Or are you afraid they'll send lawyers after you??
.
"Of course as a Mac user I don't have much to worry about with this."
Perhaps you should. Most windows users are somewhat prepared for things like this because it's become a matter of routine. (sick as that is).
But the average Mac or Linux user wouldn't know what hit 'em. It's good for us to stay alert, be cautious, worry a bit.
Actually it should work just fine. The problem isn't the total amount of data being transferred, just that it transfers so fast. If the transfers are done at a slower rate then that leaves that much more capacity for others at any given time.
So what you say is true and a good thing. People don't sit and wait so they won't mind if the transfer takes longer. Meanwhile the provider has more bandwidth available for other customers at any given time.
"Ahh, looks like the Republicans have got mod points again. Exactly what part of the political analysis do they consider to be wrong?"
I read your post completely and contemplated each of your points. They all seem quite valid and interesting. But your first comment, the one quoted above about Republicans, still doesn't make any sense to me.
Could you elaborate on that.
I honestly don't get it.
I smell a lawsuit comming on. As soon as SCO realizes these people are using virtual dummies....after all that would be a virtual Darl, right?
Being a geek is a good thing. But it doesn't mean that you have to make things more complicated than they need to be.
You obviously need voice communication without (expensive) signalling. So analog voice will do just fine. Forget computer or networking based ideas, going there is only going to sidetrack you from your goal. Remember that this is about getting your theater group to communicate, not about playing with geek toys.
Someone here has already mentioned 49 MHz headsets. Radio Shack and Maxon are common brands and those should work great for you. But if you need something with a little less interference then......
FRS, or Family Radio Service is another option. The radios are fairly inexpensive and can be had for $30 each or so. They offer multiple channels and CTCSS tones (if you don't know what that means either RTFM or get back to me, it's worth your time to understand it). Those should give you the range you're looking for. You won't get interference from businesses there, that frequency band is for non-commercial use. And if you do find someone interfering then gather information and turn them in to the FCC and your interference problem is gone.
Beyond that you could go for commercial land mobile gear. It works like FRS but you have to license a channel. You do get a lot more power and range. The drawback is that the school will have to apply for a license and that takes time. You'll have to budget $300 on up for each radio with the accessories you'll want.
If it were me I would try FRS first, a trial run with a couple of borrowed radios.
"Still, I did not want to give in to my indulgent North American lifestyle so quickly."
There's a huge tipoff that this guy has never been outside North America. Chances are he considers a trip to Canada and exotic foreign adventure.
Sigh
Ok, but the ad agency, suppose them boys got em a site admin? Ya rekon them boys got unlimited bandwidth and aint gotta worry about it?
Yes, depending on the program someone is paying for that bandwidth and most of the time the agency hosting the advertising will work that into the cost of placing an ad with them. Bigger ad, higher cost. A full video commercial with 100K deliveries a day isn't going to be cheap.
That does an interesting thing. As an advertiser you want to reach me, the consumer. You want to impress me so you go all out. Here I am paying my part of the freight and what you've just done is slow me down and cost me more money. When I finally see your ad I am neither impressed or amused.
Back to these non-ad-agency-site-admins. They have content they want the world to see and it costs them money to deliver it, we've established that. Why? Why do they want you to see their content? If it's a religious push then the church should pay. If it's information used for education then that should be part of the cost of the schools business and factored into tuition. If it's a commercial entitiy providing support for one of their products then that's a cost of doing business and/or they can have a subscriber type service.
Greed is about the only reason I see for these site admins to whore themselves out to an ad agency. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a little greed, just that it isn't necessary to provide content on the web.
Who said they don't have bandwidth costs? The analogy was made using the television industry, and I think that's a good one. There are obviously costs associated with producing anything like a television show or a web site, I didn't dispute that.
What I said was that the internet user pays the freight of getting the content. That content is, and should be, paid for by any number of other methods. Possibilities include subscription, donation, at the expense of the producer or even by...yes....advertising.
Next time you speak to those millions of site admins who are so concerned about their high bandwidth costs, tell them hi for me. You might also remind them that they can cut a huge chunk of bandwidth by reducing the size of their advertising.
You want to talk bandwidth? This whole thing is about ad agencies who want to push full length video commercials. I can't imagine that your concerned site admin buddies are too thilled about paying for the bandwidth required for that....unless they make some serious money on it. Now imagine me sitting here and paying for the bandwidth to receive it. I'm not making any money on it and it's not saving me money, it's just costing me money. Just how thrilled should I feel?
Part of what made Trek so great was that you could sit down to a single episode and watch a story. The writer picked and issue, wrote a story about it, made his point and you had something to think about.
Enterprise doesn't work that way. The way it's written you lose track of where you're at if you miss an episode. For those of us who aren't die hard trekkies (oh, now I've done it) that can happen. The show is in a crappy time slot and many of us don't own Tivo or whatever. So I missed a couple of episodes, finally caught one and was totally lost on the story line. That really doesn't encourage me to tune in next week.
I'm going to agree with the comments about the breasts and lather. I'm all for seeing a nice set of tits, don't get me wrong on that. But it doesn't do anything for the story. If I want tits I can tune an adult channel or surf pr0n. When I sit down and tune in Enterprise I'm expecting good science fiction...and so far I'm sorely disappointed.
Star Trek was something Rodenbery used to get people to think about the issues of the day while entertaining them. It was good at that. Notice that it was similar to other hits of the period (Gunsmoke, Ponderosa, etc) and they wern't serials either.
To recap, my advice for the producers:
1) Change the format of the show, it should be a collection of related episodes, not a serial.
2) Tackle the issues of the day, stick your necks out a bit.
3) Quit flaunting the tits and ass. By all means keep them in the show, just quit trying to use them to get people to tune in.
4) Fight for a better time slot. Then go forth and promote the hell out of it and remind people to tune in at that time to see the new version of the show that doesn't suck.
Not that they'll listen. I'm afraid it's too far gone at this point. Even the geeks living in their mothers basements have lost faith and interest.
Bzzzzzt! That answer is incorrect Carnildo, but thanks for playing our game.
Paying your monthly bill to your ISP is exactly paying the freight. You are paying for transportation of data....the freight as it were.
What you are not paying for is content and that is the issue.
The guy who made the TV comment didn't get it either. In this modern age the "freight" is usually paid in the form of a cable or satelite bill or perhaps a TV translator district donation. In some cases the cost of the freight is built into the cost of advertising on the station, but that is only true of your local channels on their main transmitter. The content of television is paid for by other methods, usually advertising, subscription (think HBO) or donation (think PBS).
Killing the popup/under isn't enough, it doesn't get the point across. You need to provide the consumer with some tools.
Start with something in the sidebar that shows a list of companies that advertised in popup/under windows. Scan the windows before killing them to provide the information. This way the consumer knows which companies to shun for bad advertising practice without having to actually endure the ads.
Then, using that information, send an automatic email to the corporate headquarters of the company that wants you to buy thier product. In the browser settings the user should have a place to customize this email. It should say something to the effect of "You put a popup/under on my computer and that is shameful. Because you stole my bandwidth for rude advertising I will not be buying your product until you assure me that you have ceased the practice." Return receipt requested.
Next, your browser created database of popup/under pushers should automatically be forwarded to a worldwide clearinghouse. Everybodies data would be consolidated into a large database and the results displayed in a web page of shame. This clearinghouse would also send automatic email and snail mail to the corporations who push the most. This service could be paid by subscription or by paypal donation...but it would never advertise other than being mentioned in the browser help files and configuration menu.
Just like the dog, you keyed in when someone used the term liberal and went off. You were so blinded by your rage that you missed the point that the press was to thank for using the term and passing judgement on this plan for the space program rather than simply reporting news.
Try to stay focused.
Hey......
Meeestir
Wanna buy a watch?
From the Associated Press story on abcnews.com:
"...outlining a costly new effort to return Americans to the moon..."
How wonderful. Someone at the AP has already done the math for us and determined that this effort is "costly."
Outfuckingstanding. Now how come all they do is whine about how we have a deficit rather than reporting on how we can eliminate it. They seem to have all the answers.
And then you have all the liberals bashing the plan because we need the money on the war for terror. Funny how they didn't support that war until we wanted to spend money on the space program.
Might as well give up now and call it a day. The AP says it's too costly so we aren't going to get enough benefit out of it.
"there is a large percentage of the population that I have no desire to see naked."
I agree. There is also a large portion of the population whos dress and jewelry offends me. Amazingly enough there is nothing that can be done about that since they are not naked.
I have a difficult time understanding how it's ok to discriminate against nudity but not ok to discriminate against clothed people with metal stuck through their noses/tongues/eyebrows/etc/all-of-the-above.
Waste Management has a deal where I live. For $15 per month they come every week and collect a 92 gal. size can of anything I put in there. No questions asked. I've put old electronics in there. Gone. Dirty diapers. Gone. Old newspapers. Gone. Dead cat. Gone.
Keep in mind that if you turn something in for recycling, it might not be very friendly to the environment. Paper is a good example. Also, grouping things together like that can be a bad thing because then you get high concentrations of stuff in the landfill or incinerator whereas if you just throw it in the garbage the stuff is spread out and doesn't do quite the damage.
I recently purchased two Gateway laptops and didn't know what to get to put them in. I got one with the "comes with it" attache and one with the Targis backpack.
I like the Targis backpack so much that I've gone and ordered one for the other laptop. I carry it everywhere, even if I don't need the laptop. There is plenty of padding build in and the storage is very well thought out.
Dude! What the hell are you talking about? You've got to have some serious issues if you can't mount something correctly in a relay rack. Center the load, zip in four screws from the front and, sometimes, four from the back. If you've centered your load properly those bottom two screws will hold it forever, or at least until you put the top two in. If the equipment provides for rear screws you always use them as well (like power supplies).
And who the hell is this "guy in back" anyway? You make me jealous, wish I had help. I've built entire cellular telephone sites and radio repeater sites putting things in racks and rarely have help. I've even been able to mount 75 lb power supplies in relay racks by myself without damaging anything.
I know you must have been shooting for "funny" but someone modded you up as "informative" and someone is going to get the wrong idea. Relay racks will work fine for his application.
By the way, you do know that they make four point relay racks, right?