Courts have thus far generally ruled that it's not a Fourth Amendment violation to put it on the undercarriage of the vehicle, but opening up the engine compartment is a "search" and thus poses 4Am problems.
Consequently, they're not going to hook them into the engine compartment without a warrant.
1) How does the device know what IP addresses to use? 2) How does my computer know which IP address the device has used?
These are the problems that make configuring such a device on anything other than the simplest network into a real nightmare. It's one thing for wireless routers which are usually DHCP servers. But what about WAP's which are usually bridges?
It is very difficult to define correct grammar, to start with. (Note false positive for preposition stranding) Moreover, spelling corrections may disrupt the vital Cupertino between parent and child. (Note Cupertino effect) Thus I would expect such controls to have no effect, once or ever. (eggcorn) Because of times when splitting the infinitive is required, I would never expect demand to more than double from where it is today. Should the passive voice be allowed?
Personally, I'd like to see the radios turned off by default and you have to go through a little wizard to get them turned on.
The problem is that most of these use hard-coded IP addresses. If you run DHCP on your network, turning off the radio means you really have to plug the thing into a dedicated network connection to configure it.
Wouldn't it be easier (though slightly more risky) and still within acceptable risk to turn off the ethernet port until it is configured?
Moreover most of the wizards are Windows-only. I don't want to have to start researching which wireless systems I can use on my linux-only network.
30 million gallons of dehydrated pure water, shipped overnight anywhere in the US for $1000. Send me a check and I'll put it in a 1 qt ziplock bag and mail it out by the end of the day. All you have to do is rehydrate it and you have all the water you need. It's a real deal!
Agreed. The fact is that a sysadmin who is good at scripting may cost 1.5x as much as one who is not. However, that same sysadmin might be able to do 3x as much work over a long period.
Per person, the cheap sysadmin is cheaper. Per unit of work accomplished, the cheap sysadmin is really expensive. At best, you can delegate the simple, repetitive, manual tasks to the cheap guy and have most of the real work done by the more expensive guy.
Duh. If it doesn't HAVE to be an either/or situation, why make it into one?
Agree, but generally for admin tools, the CLI is more important than the GUI. The basic issue is that a GUI is far more expressive in terms of what is presented to the user, but the CLI is far more expressive in what the user presents to the computer. Consider trying to offer the flexibility in a GUI of the following ftp statement (Linux syntax here):
get foo.txt ~/ftp_archive/bar.txt
You can't do it without making that a many-stage process.
For sure if you're going to deliver more than one kind if interface they should relate to each other as much as possible.
But a good GUI is nothing like a good CLI. A GUI that mimics a CLI will be cumbersome to use. A CLI that mimics a GUI will be even worse. So I disagree with this a great deal. The result of trying to do this would be the development of interfaces that do nothing well and appeal to nobody.
By what record can you judge Obama as better than McCain? Obama had no record, no writings, no published papers, no scholastic records - a man with really no background at all other than a few "autobiographical" books published.
McCain's voting record on civil liberties is not great. I personally see McCain-Feingold as an unacceptable abridgement of freedom of speech, and his consistent vote against telecom immunity during the Bush era was another thing I held against him. This was balanced against his military background (a plus since it means less likelihood of falling for games by the military), etc. Obama's support for civil liberties while a senator, his articulation of the issues suggesting he understood them, etc. were positives in his favor.
Honestly, McCain was a better candidate than Bush or Clinton, but I felt and still feel that what our country really needs is an effort to restore civil liberties. McCain's record in this area is pretty bleak. This being said, Obama has disappointed me and many others and I don't expect him to be re-elected.
Any personal disagreement you have with current policy doesn't make far right gun nuts any less dangerous.
????
You mean like, who, David Koresh? I might not like Mr Koresh, but I think he showed himself to be an order of magnitude less dangerous than the BATF.... They raided the Branch Davidians for publicity......
And Randy Weaver? I might not want to even associate with racists like him but the government's behavior there was so egregious that he was awarded a settlement even after killing a cop (though quite frankly in self defence).......
These excesses span both political parties and trace back to changes in the law signed by Reagan. We are turning our officers of the peace into adjuncts for military law enforcement, as Kopel points out, and this must be reversed.
At least they are trying to make it legal. I'm sure the TURRISTS won't just use standalone encryption.
Yes, we must do this or else the tourists have won. We must instead expand this global war on tourism to make sure no tourist is safe anywhere in the world.
Every politician lies through his/her teeth to try to get elected. That's why one looks to records instead of rhetoric. In that regard, Obama looked better than McCain though in practice he has been worse than his predecessor.
Honestly I've come to the point the way out of this is to treat re-election campaigns as a simple up/down vote on the job the candidate has done. At this point, unless something really extreme comes up, I'm planning to vote for the challenger in 2012 regardless of who is running (heck, I'd vote for Palin if she got the nomination and that's saying a LOT).
I just put up a journal entry in my slashdot journal that I have marked as freely redistributable. Feel free to distribute it far and wide. It tries to explain the issues in a way that the average voter can understand.
But in this case, the question is whether they can say "if you buy a computer, it MUST come with a wiretap backdoor." That seems far more solidly under the commerce clause power than "if you are alive you must buy health insurance." The larger questions become questions of of the 4th and 5th Amendments....
At this point, nobody else has confirmed this limit, right? Do we know if this affects all versions of Stuxnet? Only some versions? Does it only apply to the sneakerware portion of the attack or does a network attack count as a hop?
The reason I am asking is that the analysis I have seen on that site isn't sufficient to get to the view that it's geographically limited in terms of codebase.
9500 copies means 500 copies survive somewhere. Now anyone who really cares will seek out one of those 500 copies and compare it to the second printing to see what was redacted.
Apparently it has some kind of self-kill logic which tries to ensure it doesn't spread after three "hops", which suggests whoever wrote it didn't want it to become a totally uncontrolled worldwide infection.
Do you have a cite for this? Also is it still this way (given the P2P component discussed in a paper on that subject by Symantec)?
So out of "countries that hate Iran" which of those is most likely to perform an operation that is very likely to be detected and very likely to piss off a large number of random other nations or organizations? If I had to pick an intelligence agency in the world that most resembled a criminal syndicate, the Mossad would be pretty high up the list. Speculation is fun isn't it.
Yet Indonesia has a very large number of infections too. Why are you so focused on Iran? It's not like the virus isn't prevalent in other countries as well. It's also hit India a lot harder than Pakistan.
The fact is we could build conspiracy theories out of this any number of ways. However, the fact is that the virus is programmed to REPLACE ITSELF with a new executable if it finds a newer version. Given the fact that Pakistan has not been hit much but India and Iran both have, we might suggest Pakistan the sponsor. However, I'm still assuming Russian cyber-criminals are behind this.
There are some strange things that the state-sponsor theory of Stuxnet is at a loss to explain.
The first of these is the P2P update cycle of the worm. One important element of this is that to update the one has to re-seed the network with a new version. However anybody with appropriate skills can do this, so the worm could be easily retooled to strike back at the creator. The idea that a nation would be incompetent enough to allow such a weapon as this to be redirected back at their critical infrastructure doesn't sit well with me.
The second major problem has to do with the fact the virus tends to be digitally signed via stolen private keys of reputable companies from around the globe many of which have no presence in the Middle East. Theft of these private keys is suggestive of a long-term effort probably involving past viruses and trojans.
Also while Iran is a major hotspot of infections they aren't the only ones. Indonesia is a close second.
These things are easy to explain from perspective that assumes a criminal syndicate but hard to explain from the perspective of a theory of state sponsorship.
Stuxnet is groundbreaking in a large number of ways. It's also an interesting question as to whether the malfunctions in the SCADA systems expected under Stuxnet could be similar to those experienced by Deepwater Horizon before the tragic explosion. While it might not be stuxnet in that case, it raises important questions about possible consequences of such a virus. These consequences are significantly more severe for a state sponsor than for a criminal one.
Slashdot Mirror
Courts have thus far generally ruled that it's not a Fourth Amendment violation to put it on the undercarriage of the vehicle, but opening up the engine compartment is a "search" and thus poses 4Am problems.
Consequently, they're not going to hook them into the engine compartment without a warrant.
1) How does the device know what IP addresses to use?
2) How does my computer know which IP address the device has used?
These are the problems that make configuring such a device on anything other than the simplest network into a real nightmare. It's one thing for wireless routers which are usually DHCP servers. But what about WAP's which are usually bridges?
duckhead! ;-)
It is very difficult to define correct grammar, to start with. (Note false positive for preposition stranding)
Moreover, spelling corrections may disrupt the vital Cupertino between parent and child. (Note Cupertino effect)
Thus I would expect such controls to have no effect, once or ever. (eggcorn)
Because of times when splitting the infinitive is required, I would never expect demand to more than double from where it is today.
Should the passive voice be allowed?
etc.
Technology can't enforce grammar rules effectively.
The problem is that most of these use hard-coded IP addresses. If you run DHCP on your network, turning off the radio means you really have to plug the thing into a dedicated network connection to configure it.
Wouldn't it be easier (though slightly more risky) and still within acceptable risk to turn off the ethernet port until it is configured?
Moreover most of the wizards are Windows-only. I don't want to have to start researching which wireless systems I can use on my linux-only network.
In other words (trying to help the Slashdot community understand):
It's the same problem with proprietary software, and with genetically modified crops.
30 million gallons of dehydrated pure water, shipped overnight anywhere in the US for $1000. Send me a check and I'll put it in a 1 qt ziplock bag and mail it out by the end of the day. All you have to do is rehydrate it and you have all the water you need. It's a real deal!
Agreed. The fact is that a sysadmin who is good at scripting may cost 1.5x as much as one who is not. However, that same sysadmin might be able to do 3x as much work over a long period.
Per person, the cheap sysadmin is cheaper. Per unit of work accomplished, the cheap sysadmin is really expensive. At best, you can delegate the simple, repetitive, manual tasks to the cheap guy and have most of the real work done by the more expensive guy.
Agree, but generally for admin tools, the CLI is more important than the GUI. The basic issue is that a GUI is far more expressive in terms of what is presented to the user, but the CLI is far more expressive in what the user presents to the computer. Consider trying to offer the flexibility in a GUI of the following ftp statement (Linux syntax here):
get foo.txt ~/ftp_archive/bar.txt
You can't do it without making that a many-stage process.
But a good GUI is nothing like a good CLI. A GUI that mimics a CLI will be cumbersome to use. A CLI that mimics a GUI will be even worse. So I disagree with this a great deal. The result of trying to do this would be the development of interfaces that do nothing well and appeal to nobody.
McCain's voting record on civil liberties is not great. I personally see McCain-Feingold as an unacceptable abridgement of freedom of speech, and his consistent vote against telecom immunity during the Bush era was another thing I held against him. This was balanced against his military background (a plus since it means less likelihood of falling for games by the military), etc. Obama's support for civil liberties while a senator, his articulation of the issues suggesting he understood them, etc. were positives in his favor.
Honestly, McCain was a better candidate than Bush or Clinton, but I felt and still feel that what our country really needs is an effort to restore civil liberties. McCain's record in this area is pretty bleak. This being said, Obama has disappointed me and many others and I don't expect him to be re-elected.
(David Kopel is a former Colorado State Attorney General and the author of "No More Wacos.")
????
You mean like, who, David Koresh? I might not like Mr Koresh, but I think he showed himself to be an order of magnitude less dangerous than the BATF.... They raided the Branch Davidians for publicity......
And Randy Weaver? I might not want to even associate with racists like him but the government's behavior there was so egregious that he was awarded a settlement even after killing a cop (though quite frankly in self defence).......
These excesses span both political parties and trace back to changes in the law signed by Reagan. We are turning our officers of the peace into adjuncts for military law enforcement, as Kopel points out, and this must be reversed.
Yes, we must do this or else the tourists have won. We must instead expand this global war on tourism to make sure no tourist is safe anywhere in the world.
Every politician lies through his/her teeth to try to get elected. That's why one looks to records instead of rhetoric. In that regard, Obama looked better than McCain though in practice he has been worse than his predecessor.
Honestly I've come to the point the way out of this is to treat re-election campaigns as a simple up/down vote on the job the candidate has done. At this point, unless something really extreme comes up, I'm planning to vote for the challenger in 2012 regardless of who is running (heck, I'd vote for Palin if she got the nomination and that's saying a LOT).
I just put up a journal entry in my slashdot journal that I have marked as freely redistributable. Feel free to distribute it far and wide. It tries to explain the issues in a way that the average voter can understand.
Absolutely. Also donate to the ACLU, EFF, EPIC, and/or other organizations which are likely to fight this.
But in this case, the question is whether they can say "if you buy a computer, it MUST come with a wiretap backdoor." That seems far more solidly under the commerce clause power than "if you are alive you must buy health insurance." The larger questions become questions of of the 4th and 5th Amendments....
Nope, that's the democrats at least in Montana. Or at least that's the party accusing their opposition of vegetarianism.....
Set up a Perl script to jump through all their hoops, etc. Then set up cron or anacron to go through that once a month and validate the results.
A small group probably doesn't have a lot of Siemens PLC's in use......
At this point, nobody else has confirmed this limit, right? Do we know if this affects all versions of Stuxnet? Only some versions? Does it only apply to the sneakerware portion of the attack or does a network attack count as a hop?
The reason I am asking is that the analysis I have seen on that site isn't sufficient to get to the view that it's geographically limited in terms of codebase.
I thought the printing run was 10000 copies.
9500 copies means 500 copies survive somewhere. Now anyone who really cares will seek out one of those 500 copies and compare it to the second printing to see what was redacted.
Do you have a cite for this? Also is it still this way (given the P2P component discussed in a paper on that subject by Symantec)?
Yet Indonesia has a very large number of infections too. Why are you so focused on Iran? It's not like the virus isn't prevalent in other countries as well. It's also hit India a lot harder than Pakistan.
The fact is we could build conspiracy theories out of this any number of ways. However, the fact is that the virus is programmed to REPLACE ITSELF with a new executable if it finds a newer version. Given the fact that Pakistan has not been hit much but India and Iran both have, we might suggest Pakistan the sponsor. However, I'm still assuming Russian cyber-criminals are behind this.
There are some strange things that the state-sponsor theory of Stuxnet is at a loss to explain.
The first of these is the P2P update cycle of the worm. One important element of this is that to update the one has to re-seed the network with a new version. However anybody with appropriate skills can do this, so the worm could be easily retooled to strike back at the creator. The idea that a nation would be incompetent enough to allow such a weapon as this to be redirected back at their critical infrastructure doesn't sit well with me.
The second major problem has to do with the fact the virus tends to be digitally signed via stolen private keys of reputable companies from around the globe many of which have no presence in the Middle East. Theft of these private keys is suggestive of a long-term effort probably involving past viruses and trojans.
Also while Iran is a major hotspot of infections they aren't the only ones. Indonesia is a close second.
These things are easy to explain from perspective that assumes a criminal syndicate but hard to explain from the perspective of a theory of state sponsorship.
Stuxnet is groundbreaking in a large number of ways. It's also an interesting question as to whether the malfunctions in the SCADA systems expected under Stuxnet could be similar to those experienced by Deepwater Horizon before the tragic explosion. While it might not be stuxnet in that case, it raises important questions about possible consequences of such a virus. These consequences are significantly more severe for a state sponsor than for a criminal one.
Question: Does the suspension also affect the telephone services they offer? If so, complaining to the FCC might also be worthwhile.