My biggest issue with IDS's is "So, what now?"
For example, Yesterday I get hit with about 90 attempts to get cmd.exe on my webserver from one specific IP addy. So, a quick nslookup / whois later and I get the server name and contact info for the suspected malicious box.
What is the big deal here? You have an Intrusion Detection System, you detected an intrusion. Now, let them know you dectected them. I wrote a simple script that pings the host back on the port they scanned, kind of says "hey, im here, im watching you, DON'T mess with me, im not a moron".
Only if these judges actually knew what was really going on. They state the primary reason the DeCSS source isnt free speech is due to the fact that it does not need a "human component" to be functional. They make analogies to recipies and blueprints, as follows:
The Appellants vigorously reject the idea that computer code can be regulated according to any different standard than that applicable to pure speech, i.e., speech that lacks a nonspeech component. Although recognizing that code is a series of instructions to a computer, they argue that code is no different, for First Amendment purposes, than blueprints that instruct an engineer or recipes that instruct a cook. See Supplemental Brief for Appellants at 2, 3.27 We disagree. Unlike a blueprint or a recipe, which cannot yield any functional result without human comprehension of its content, human decision-making, and human action, computer code can instantly cause a computer to accomplish tasks and instantly render the results of those tasks available throughout the world via the Internet. The only human action required to achieve these results can be as limited and instantaneous as a single click of a mouse.
This makes no sense whatsoever! So, if non-humans (computers, machines, robots, etc.) can execute a particular element of free speech without human intervention, the constitution doesnt apply! Commands by any non-human arent covered by free speech.... this is horrible.
Actually, my facts are straight.. 'dude'. There was an explosion, causing the wing to separate and crash in a different location. You can see it on the video on cnn.
With napster, everyone is so focused on the legality of internet-based file sharing, and everyone knows that copying stuff that isnt yours and distrubiting it is illegal. This isnt just a matter of opinion anymore, legally, napster is dead, the ruling is pretty much known. Napster as a business is only trying to surive long enough to get out the subscription service with partner BMG in july. This subject is already old hat, even for highschoolers.
A better topic for debate would be how distrubution of entertianment will pan out on the internet. I personally think this whole riaa vs. napster thing will go down as a case study in b-schools as one of the biggest business mistakes ever made. Napster had at one point 50 million loyal users, and if some sort of partnership was made, instead of sqaushing it, a huge amount of sales could be made distrubuting in a new medium.
If only our nationsexecutives could see beyond the next two fiscal quaters...
Slashdot Mirror
My biggest issue with IDS's is "So, what now?"
For example, Yesterday I get hit with about 90 attempts to get cmd.exe on my webserver from one specific IP addy. So, a quick nslookup / whois later and I get the server name and contact info for the suspected malicious box.
What is the big deal here? You have an Intrusion Detection System, you detected an intrusion. Now, let them know you dectected them. I wrote a simple script that pings the host back on the port they scanned, kind of says "hey, im here, im watching you, DON'T mess with me, im not a moron".
uhhh... no you dork! find it yourself..
... i could find some code to test this out?
Only if these judges actually knew what was really going on. They state the primary reason the DeCSS source isnt free speech is due to the fact that it does not need a "human component" to be functional. They make analogies to recipies and blueprints, as follows:
The Appellants vigorously reject the idea that computer code can be regulated according to any different standard than that applicable to pure speech, i.e., speech that lacks a nonspeech component. Although recognizing that code is a series of instructions to a computer, they argue that code is no different, for First Amendment purposes, than blueprints that instruct an engineer or recipes that instruct a cook. See Supplemental Brief for Appellants at 2, 3.27 We disagree. Unlike a blueprint or a recipe, which cannot yield any functional result without human comprehension of its content, human decision-making, and human action, computer code can instantly cause a computer to accomplish tasks and instantly render the results of those tasks available throughout the world via the Internet. The only human action required to achieve these results can be as limited and instantaneous as a single click of a mouse.
This makes no sense whatsoever! So, if non-humans (computers, machines, robots, etc.) can execute a particular element of free speech without human intervention, the constitution doesnt apply! Commands by any non-human arent covered by free speech.... this is horrible.
Actually, my facts are straight.. 'dude'. There was an explosion, causing the wing to separate and crash in a different location. You can see it on the video on cnn.
There are several reasons to assume that this was a bomb.
1) Credible warning of another terrorist attack from Nov 7-14 issued a few weeks ago.
2) It was an international flight loaded to full capacity with gas.
3) Luggage on international flights out of jfk are not required to be scanned for explosives.
4) Wing and fuselage crashed in two separate sites, meaning a great force must have seperated them.
Im not saying we can be sure 100% that this was a bomb, there are several strong indicators that it was.
I cant believe it.. it was really him..
check it out here
With napster, everyone is so focused on the legality of internet-based file sharing, and everyone knows that copying stuff that isnt yours and distrubiting it is illegal. This isnt just a matter of opinion anymore, legally, napster is dead, the ruling is pretty much known. Napster as a business is only trying to surive long enough to get out the subscription service with partner BMG in july. This subject is already old hat, even for highschoolers. A better topic for debate would be how distrubution of entertianment will pan out on the internet. I personally think this whole riaa vs. napster thing will go down as a case study in b-schools as one of the biggest business mistakes ever made. Napster had at one point 50 million loyal users, and if some sort of partnership was made, instead of sqaushing it, a huge amount of sales could be made distrubuting in a new medium. If only our nationsexecutives could see beyond the next two fiscal quaters...
actually i wish they would turn booths into internet kiosks.. although it would be hard to build one that could deal with the punishment it would get.