Simply amazing. 100 seconds after posting, the first people started grabbing the torrent. Now 20 minutes later it's fully seeded by dozens of people. Gosh, I love bittorrent.
I've found that with my business's T1 PBX, too... I did some tests with the CID set to "123" -- and it worked fine for local calls. But all long distance calls would fail, fast-busy.
My guess is that the wider telephone network doesn't pass through obviously invalid CIDs, and anything other than 10 digits is invalid.
Right... but you're still proving that ANI is not spoofable, in that it still accurately reflects the number of the line that placed the call.
I can hide my ANI by using Camophone, since the ANI that shows up is some line that belongs to them. (I get an ANI in the 214 area code, which is Dallas, Texas)
> Some providers allow you to set CID/ANI to anything
CID, yes. ANI? Are you sure?
Since ANI is used for billing purposes, including 900 numbers, I highly doubt any telco allows it to be modified.
Camophone sets CID, but the ANI is the number of the line that belongs to Camophone. (Or whomever their telco provider is)
Given that, it really really surprises me that anyone bases security on CallerID. I just successfully broke into my own t-mobile voicemail box using camophone, since I have the feature set so i don't have to dial my password if i'm calling from "my own phone."
I also have a sprint phone, and I haven't been able to get in there, yet, but I don't know their voicemail system direct number, so I can't be sure. (I had to use the direct access number for tmobile to get the hack to work on them)
I would HOPE that creditcard activation systems use ANI, not CID.
How soon before ordinary plebes will be able to get ANI on their incoming calls? Or a new service that lets you forward your calls to an ANI-detection center that then places ANI on CID and sends the call back to you!
I think it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider a different alternative "private event" besides a rock concert. Maybe a similar speaking engagement. Say, for example, it were the CEO of a large business speaking at a private gathering.
Say the CEO of Coca Cola were speaking, and I bought a ticket to attend and showed up wearing a Pepsi shirt. The Coke goons could conceivably (and quite legally) evict me from the event.
In my mind, at least, I'm much less upset by that scenario than by the very similar situation of a political candidate. Why? Because a candidate for public office, and especially an incumbent office holder, works in the public sector. To me that changes the rules just a little bit -- not legally, but ethically.
The whole concept of a sitting president making a campaign speech a "private" event is what bothers us, I think. Yes, on purely legal grounds they're within their rights to evict anyone they want. But there are troubling ethical issues with that, because the lines begin to blur a bit between "public" and "private" with a public official using some amount of public funds for security and transportation etc. to be at the event in the first place.
I would argue that the t-shirt evictions were legal, but ethically not right.
Of course not, silly! You can't patent a thing... But do keep your eyes out for my patent on my new process for "using oxygen in a reaction with hydrocarbon compounds via enzymatic biological processes to generate energy to perpetuate living tissue."
God will have to license my patent, or I'll sue...
Why do we never see any mention of term limits any more? As the story mentions, we're at an almost crisis of incumbency, yet I still hear nobody mention term limits.
Would there ever be any hope of such a thing getting passed?
(I would think some of the smaller states would be in favor, since the most powerful career congressmen are from the bigger states, though there are exceptions)
There's only so much easily obtainable uranium before we start to run into the same problems as fossil fuels
Well, not really. According to this FAQ on nuclear energy, with efficient reprocessing of nuclear fuel the Earth's uranium supplies will last upwards of a billion years. That's a million times longer than the longest estimates for how long our fossil fuel supply will last us.
And excluding nuclear weapons, nuclear power has caused very few deaths compared to the coal industry from mining alone, never mind any of the consequences of pollution from burning coal. Every nuclear "incident" has been so grossly exaggerated it's just not funny.
In remarks earlier today, President Bush shrugged off the mishap, explaining, "Setbacks like this in the space program are to be expected. It's hard work! How can you expect them to succeed if you criticize their mistakes?"
>>Except if the cable breaks and wraps around the planet 3 times!
>1) it's not that long
Well, it is, almost: Earth's circumference is about 25k miles, and a space elevator would extend out to 62k or so, according to LiftPort.
But the point is there's no danger from such a system breaking and falling. The ribbon will be remarkably flimsy as far as doom-from-the-sky things go, and will just shred into little pieces.
Turning an argument about the electoral college into a states' rights argument is patently absurd.
Huh? It's ENTIRELY about states' rights. States elect the president, not people.
If Minnesota's state legislature decided to, THEY could choose the electors, and forego an election altogether. Or they could let the governor decide. It's up to the state.
There is NOTHING in our constitution about the people electing a president. Indeed for the first few elections many states did not let the people vote for president.
All but two states have currently decided in a winner-take-all election system, which amplifies the voice of that state tremendously... if even a slim plurality of a state's voters want a candidate, the state throws its entire electoral weight behind that candidate. Go states!
If you want it to be different, start writing up a constitutional amendment...
Slashdot Mirror
I overheard a salesdroid touting that their support line offered 24/7 support, Monday-Friday 8am to 8pm.
Simply amazing. 100 seconds after posting, the first people started grabbing the torrent. Now 20 minutes later it's fully seeded by dozens of people. Gosh, I love bittorrent.
Here's a torrent of the movie.
I hope it gets seeded soon, I'm not sure how long I can keep my copy open.
It does that for me with any 10 digit callerID.
I've found that with my business's T1 PBX, too... I did some tests with the CID set to "123" -- and it worked fine for local calls. But all long distance calls would fail, fast-busy.
My guess is that the wider telephone network doesn't pass through obviously invalid CIDs, and anything other than 10 digits is invalid.
Right... but you're still proving that ANI is not spoofable, in that it still accurately reflects the number of the line that placed the call.
I can hide my ANI by using Camophone, since the ANI that shows up is some line that belongs to them. (I get an ANI in the 214 area code, which is Dallas, Texas)
But I cannot set the ANI to any number I want.
> Some providers allow you to set CID/ANI to anything
CID, yes. ANI? Are you sure?
Since ANI is used for billing purposes, including 900 numbers, I highly doubt any telco allows it to be modified.
Camophone sets CID, but the ANI is the number of the line that belongs to Camophone. (Or whomever their telco provider is)
Given that, it really really surprises me that anyone bases security on CallerID. I just successfully broke into my own t-mobile voicemail box using camophone, since I have the feature set so i don't have to dial my password if i'm calling from "my own phone."
I also have a sprint phone, and I haven't been able to get in there, yet, but I don't know their voicemail system direct number, so I can't be sure. (I had to use the direct access number for tmobile to get the hack to work on them)
I would HOPE that creditcard activation systems use ANI, not CID.
How soon before ordinary plebes will be able to get ANI on their incoming calls? Or a new service that lets you forward your calls to an ANI-detection center that then places ANI on CID and sends the call back to you!
I see some Sneetches whose bellies have stars...
> and the warranty is totally gay
You do know that using "gay" as a negative adjective is offensive, right?
Please be considerate.
I think it would be an interesting thought experiment to consider a different alternative "private event" besides a rock concert. Maybe a similar speaking engagement. Say, for example, it were the CEO of a large business speaking at a private gathering.
Say the CEO of Coca Cola were speaking, and I bought a ticket to attend and showed up wearing a Pepsi shirt. The Coke goons could conceivably (and quite legally) evict me from the event.
In my mind, at least, I'm much less upset by that scenario than by the very similar situation of a political candidate. Why? Because a candidate for public office, and especially an incumbent office holder, works in the public sector. To me that changes the rules just a little bit -- not legally, but ethically.
The whole concept of a sitting president making a campaign speech a "private" event is what bothers us, I think. Yes, on purely legal grounds they're within their rights to evict anyone they want. But there are troubling ethical issues with that, because the lines begin to blur a bit between "public" and "private" with a public official using some amount of public funds for security and transportation etc. to be at the event in the first place.
I would argue that the t-shirt evictions were legal, but ethically not right.
- Peter
> Better patent the activity of patent licensing, too, just to be on the safe side.
I'll bet the US Patent Office would issue it, too. After all, it would be too much work for them to find prior art...
> Good grief. What is next, a patent on oxygen?
Of course not, silly! You can't patent a thing... But do keep your eyes out for my patent on my new process for "using oxygen in a reaction with hydrocarbon compounds via enzymatic biological processes to generate energy to perpetuate living tissue."
God will have to license my patent, or I'll sue...
- Peter
Well, the states could do it by themselves. Constitutional convention time!
Why do we never see any mention of term limits any more? As the story mentions, we're at an almost crisis of incumbency, yet I still hear nobody mention term limits.
Would there ever be any hope of such a thing getting passed?
(I would think some of the smaller states would be in favor, since the most powerful career congressmen are from the bigger states, though there are exceptions)
The official Badnarik/Campagna 04 website has a page that is being continuously updated[...]
Umm... you do realize that you just posted the same link as was included in the story, and got modded +5 informative for it? Nicely done!
John McCarthy's essays on the sustainability of human progress are fabulous -- well worth an evening reading through them all.
/.ers ever NOT make things into links? Silly /.ers)
And certainly, the FAQ on energy use you referred to deserves to be made into a link.
(Honestly, why do
- Peter
There's only so much easily obtainable uranium before we start to run into the same problems as fossil fuels
Well, not really. According to this FAQ on nuclear energy, with efficient reprocessing of nuclear fuel the Earth's uranium supplies will last upwards of a billion years. That's a million times longer than the longest estimates for how long our fossil fuel supply will last us.
And excluding nuclear weapons, nuclear power has caused very few deaths compared to the coal industry from mining alone, never mind any of the consequences of pollution from burning coal. Every nuclear "incident" has been so grossly exaggerated it's just not funny.
- Peter
In remarks earlier today, President Bush shrugged off the mishap, explaining, "Setbacks like this in the space program are to be expected. It's hard work! How can you expect them to succeed if you criticize their mistakes?"
The vote was nowhere near unanimous. The senate vote was 77-23, and the house vote was 296-133. (From a CNN story covering the vote)
Or, you could check the horse's mouth itself:
- Peter
> p.s. I have 6 gmail invites and only need 3 people to complete an offer. 1 complete offer == 2 gmail invites.
What IS it with you people and your pyramid schemes! Good grief.
- Peter
>>Except if the cable breaks and wraps around the planet 3 times!
>1) it's not that long
Well, it is, almost: Earth's circumference is about 25k miles, and a space elevator would extend out to 62k or so, according to LiftPort.
But the point is there's no danger from such a system breaking and falling. The ribbon will be remarkably flimsy as far as doom-from-the-sky things go, and will just shred into little pieces.
- Peter
The Channel Tunnel is capable of carrying freight. If they are willing to transport nuclear material is another matter.
Um. Yes.
But I'm unaware of a tunnel/highway from the United States to France, which is the route this nuclear material is following.
- Peter
real plutonium is meanwhile thrown in the back of an SUV and driven down the highway.
Down that new highway to France?
- Peter
Just uncheck the "duplicate stories" box on your preferences page. Worked for me...
I've enjoyed a nice healthy 16mb/s from my iPod[...]
:p
Man, 16 millibits per second? That would take YEARS to transfer one song! Poor guy.
(This post brought to you by the Association for the Correct Capitalization of Abbreviations)
Did anyone else read this as "Do you thrive for crack under pressure?"
/. had really gone off the deep end...
For a minute there, I thought
- Peter
Turning an argument about the electoral college into a states' rights argument is patently absurd.
Huh? It's ENTIRELY about states' rights. States elect the president, not people.
If Minnesota's state legislature decided to, THEY could choose the electors, and forego an election altogether. Or they could let the governor decide. It's up to the state.
There is NOTHING in our constitution about the people electing a president. Indeed for the first few elections many states did not let the people vote for president.
All but two states have currently decided in a winner-take-all election system, which amplifies the voice of that state tremendously... if even a slim plurality of a state's voters want a candidate, the state throws its entire electoral weight behind that candidate. Go states!
If you want it to be different, start writing up a constitutional amendment...
- Peter