Golly, that would suck to be stuck in a 30 zone, needing to go 60 to get out of the way of an oncoming truck.
If the truck is oncoming, you'd want negative speed. Going faster would just make the collision occur sooner. Next time this happens to you: Give up the chicken game and turn the steering wheel.
That should have been your first clue that it was a troll; and our first clue that you hold your own intellect in very regard indeed. (How else could you manage to convince yourself that proufoundly stupid people actually exist?)
This I don't understand at all. In order to convince myself that midgets exist, do I have to believe that I am 12 feet tall?
Why? Whats easist to type? www.slashdot.org, (31 characters) or 64.28.67.150 (10 characters). Can't people remember these things unless they spell out words?
This is one of the dumber things I've read in a long time (basically, since last time you - and by "you" I mean the general class of drooling morons - posted it).
There are about a thousand domain names I can come up with right and type in immediately off the top of my head. This is because they are made up of words that already associate to something in my head.
On the contrary, outside of networks I manage, I doubt I could come up with 20 IP addresses these days.
Memorizing an IP address, though it may be fewer characters, is far harder for the brain. When I learn www.ford.com, I need to remember, basically, zero things. I just follow a simple rule I've already learned and apply it to the name of a company I already know. On the other hand, to learn 164.109.135.183, I have to learn 12 arbitrary digits in an arbitrary order. And 12 is greater than the number of items that can be held in short-term memory, so I have to go to extensive lengths to store it.
Trying the door is actually trespassing because at that moment you are in my property.
And so? I compared trying doorknobs with trying simple exploits. These are similar because both operations, if successful, actually create a path into the secured area. This is why port scanning is NOT like trying doors. Port scanning just tells you where the doors are, something that can easily be done from the sidewalk.
It could be argued that the minute you leave the sidewalk you are tresspassing in my property.
You go try to have the neighbor kids arrested for stepping off the sidewalk into your grass and let me know how it goes.
The analog of that might be that the minute you probe a port without an advertised service you are a criminal.
What's an "advertised" service? Until (if ever) SRV records are widely deployed, this is meaningless. There is a continuum between plastering your port-80 address on every bus shelter and billboard in town, and telling nobody about the existence of your machine. In between those two points, there's no clear line.
I see port scanning as crawling around someone's house rattling doorknobs, windows, mailboxes, air ducts, rooftop hatches, etc., etc., etc.
Then you need better glasses.
Your list of metaphorical intrusions and indignities doesn't leave anything to analogize for actual attacks.
You're not going to be able to map the full cycle of casing, analysis, attack, and penetration to the burglary story unless you pace yourself a little.
Driving around looking for nice houses: Ping & port scan
Trying doors and windows: Using packaged exploits (parallels: It's easy; if it succeeds you are now able to walk around and do what you want; and any responsible person would have taken the simple measures to prevent its effectiveness)
Picking locks or prying open transomes: Launching hand-tooled attacks
Stealing and vandalizing once inside: Stealing and vandalizing once inside
The ONLY possible reason you could have for portscanning me is to probe for weaknesses in an attempt to hack my system.
Completely untrue.
For instance, before we even think of getting involved in a client project that requires working together with another IT service provider, we do a port-scan "drive-by" to see whether that provider exhibits basic competence.
If it shows that they aren't paying attention to security, in this day and age, it's clear that this company is much too far behind to make it worth the trouble of partnering with. I'm not interested in educating third parties who aren't paying us, and I'm not interested in the potential of taking the fall for their incompetence.
We also get port scanned by our competition now and then. I don't think they have any intention of attacking us; they're just doing basic intelligence-gathering. They want to know what platforms we've used for various clients, and so on. Doesn't bother me at all.
Guns can also be used for hunting purposes for us that prefer eating tasty animals that haven't been pumped up with steriods and antibiotics, raised on cruel slaughterfarm camps.
If that were truly the issue, you could use traps.
In the hands of a sane, intelligent, and emotionally stable person, a gun is not dangerous. Unfortunately, not everyone that posseses a gun meets those requirements.
You're quite right. In my experience, however, the desire to possess a gun correlates pretty strongly with the stupidity and instability that make it dangerous.
Well we're all glad that's sorted out. All someone has to do is modify nmap so it sends a protocol-correct packet after each connect() and it's no longer a port scanner?
Whip out the logs and show 50 ports hit in under a second. It's kind of hard to argue with that
You'd have to be pretty damn amateurish to pull something like that.
A proper port scanning setup distributes packets across all target machines currently of interest, from a number of source addresses, at random intervals, over a decent period of time.
When I want to give my server some reasonable name, I hit into DNS record mismatch. In other words, my DNS records do not match the reverse IP records set by my provider and thus some nodes reject to communicate with different services of my machine.
The only thing that matters (and only occasionally) is that it has a reverse DNS entry that matches some forward DNS entry. It doesn't have to match whatever additional name(s) you gave it. And to the best of my knowledge, AT&T cable customers are assigned IP numbers with matching forward and reverse DNS.
I'm thinking that you're just sad to learn that your machine doesn't show up in logs and wtmp with the name you want. As for that - which is unimportant at best - you're out of luck unless you go with a less mass-market provider. Others have suggested Speakeasy, and I'd agree.
Being a stateless platform does not mean that sealand is subject to no national laws, if it were in fact the case (it is not) all that status would mean is that Sealand is not subject to any national protection. The place was taken over by pirates a while back and not surprisingly no government lifted a finger to protect the inhabitants.
Which reminds me, Sealand - having no natural resources other than salt water and a finite supply of hardened concrete - is particularly vulnerable to siege.
If I were so motivated, it would not be terribly expensive for me to drive up their energy and food costs beyond what they could profitably afford, just by harassing delivery craft/helicopters.
The situation is unbalanced because my tactical objective is open-ended and simple (hassle them any way I can) whereas theirs is specific and complex (get particular supplies to a particular place with a particular minimum volume/frequency). This unbalance remains even if they have sufficient funds to hire mercenary protection. Furthermore, failure on my part has no cost, while failure on their part means the end of their operation.
And that doesn't even get into the fragility of their data link.
If they are taking the position that they are sovereign, and they have no defense arrangements with any actual governments, then from an practical perspective their position is fundamentally untenable in the face of even halfway-determined adversity.
Its the British Government recognising it as sovereign territory that makes it a safe place to park your data.
The British government hasn't recognized anything as sovereign until the Foreign Office says so, either explicitly or by establishing formal diplomatic relations.
Just because some judge somewhere made a goofy decision doesn't obligate the entire government to a position on a matter of international significance.
If a traffic judge in North Dakota accepts my home-made Seborga driver's license, does that mean that the United States of America suddenly recognizes a third micro-state within Italy's borders? I think not.
Officially, most countries do not recognise Taiwan as a country
Who doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country? Everyone who would otherwise have an embassy in a country of that region/size/trade volume/global significance/proximity has either a "trade office" or a "special liaison office" in Taipei, staffed exactly the same as an embassy (the US uses a fictional department but all the people are drawn from State/DOD/Commerce and of the same ranks you'd find in a real embassy), looking just like an embassy, performing the same functions as an embassy, and run by the respective foreign ministries.
This is not even vaguely similar to Sealand, which retains its unmolested status because it just hasn't been worth anyone's trouble. Taiwan, on the other hand, has been a whole lot of trouble (in terms of difficulties with China) and yet the world's governments have collectively poured billions into their relationship with it. Just no comparison at all.
From reading Sealand history, the inhabitants did repel an approaching British boat without repercussion. Some legitimacy there...
That's not legitimacy, it's just another example of "not worth the trouble." If I dance around you at a bar throwing peanuts at your head and saying you're my pet monkey, and you make to punch me and then I start scratching at you like a little girl and then you back off in disgust, it doesn't mean you really are my pet monkey. It just means you didn't find it worth your trouble to pummel me.
The U.S. has more people in jail than an other country.
Likely only because some of the other countries kill them rather than putting them in jail.
Oh, come on. You mean the reason the US' per capita incarceration rate vastly exceeds that of, say, Canada, is because the Canadians are busily executing everyone in sight?
The reason that the US has so many people in prison is that the US is alone among industrialized countries in the extent to which it criminalizes victimless crimes such as personal use of marijuana.
Get the personal-use offenders out of jail and the US starts looking like anywhere else.
except HK has not been under embargo for decades by a nearby fascist country.
What fascist country? Do you know what the word means? The only arguable fascist involved in the situation was Fulgencio Battista.
The United States is a democratic country whose process in this domain has been somewhat perverted by a wealthy Cuban expat community, resulting in a poorly-conceived and ultimately pointless embargo.
Keep your facts straight and your points will be much more convincing.
When a man resists arrest, the police then must use physical force.
When someone resists arrest, the police are authorized to use such force as is necessary and sufficient to make the arrest. They are not authorized to then go ahead and beat the person senseless as punishment. Police are not authorized to punish under any circumstances.
Get this through your fucking skull: Never fucking argue with a motherfucker who has a badge and a gun and a nightstick and has the AUTHORITY to break any of those on your fucking head and you'll be alot better off.
Fortunately the police do not, as I've said above, have that authority.
In any case, the real advice is, don't argue unless you are going to be good at it.
Police officers have as much a knack for self-preservation as anyone else, and they can tell if you know the boundaries between your rights and theirs.
-- raju1kabir, who is a nonwhite male, and who argues with mishebaving police any chance he gets, and sports no broken bones as a result.
The problem is that he deserved a good beating for refusing to stay down when they finally got the guy. No, they shouldn't have whacked the guy so bloody hard, but that is why the cops who did this beating are NOT IN JAIL!
Apparently you, like the judge, are ignorant of the law.
The police are not there to provide punishment. If Rodney King deserved anything for his behavior, that decision is not to be made by police officers. It is to be made by a court from a menu of legally-sanctioned choices.
Once you say that a police officer is justified in selecting and carrying out punishment in the field, you might as well abandon any pretense of justice. Just use the money you're spending on courts to hire and outfit a great big pack of thugs, and set them loose on the streets to beat anyone who "deserves" it.
If the Maori are paranoid about their culture/tattoos/language, could it be because they feel they are not treated with respect by the rest of the world?
Not that it's anyone's dream to be colonized and overrun by Europeans, but as such things go, the Maori have it pretty darn well off.
Rather than being subjugated, they signed a peace treaty with the British - which the British actually more or less adhered to, because their attempts to conquer the Maori by force were not exactly wildly successful.
Today, Maori is a national language in New Zealand, taught in all schools, and available for use in all official transactions. There isn't another place on earth that can say that (okay, maybe Paraguay). Maori are far more a part of the mainstream society in terms of social and political influence as well as economic participation than the Aborigines in Australia or the Native Americans in the USA and Canada.
My guess here is that you have a relatively small group of silly people who've decided to try to make news, not some major mass movement fueled by widespread righteous outrage.
Slashdot Mirror
If the truck is oncoming, you'd want negative speed. Going faster would just make the collision occur sooner. Next time this happens to you: Give up the chicken game and turn the steering wheel.
If you want rent control, just come out and say it.
This I don't understand at all. In order to convince myself that midgets exist, do I have to believe that I am 12 feet tall?
This is one of the dumber things I've read in a long time (basically, since last time you - and by "you" I mean the general class of drooling morons - posted it).
There are about a thousand domain names I can come up with right and type in immediately off the top of my head. This is because they are made up of words that already associate to something in my head.
On the contrary, outside of networks I manage, I doubt I could come up with 20 IP addresses these days.
Memorizing an IP address, though it may be fewer characters, is far harder for the brain. When I learn www.ford.com, I need to remember, basically, zero things. I just follow a simple rule I've already learned and apply it to the name of a company I already know. On the other hand, to learn 164.109.135.183, I have to learn 12 arbitrary digits in an arbitrary order. And 12 is greater than the number of items that can be held in short-term memory, so I have to go to extensive lengths to store it.
And so? I compared trying doorknobs with trying simple exploits. These are similar because both operations, if successful, actually create a path into the secured area. This is why port scanning is NOT like trying doors. Port scanning just tells you where the doors are, something that can easily be done from the sidewalk.
You go try to have the neighbor kids arrested for stepping off the sidewalk into your grass and let me know how it goes.
What's an "advertised" service? Until (if ever) SRV records are widely deployed, this is meaningless. There is a continuum between plastering your port-80 address on every bus shelter and billboard in town, and telling nobody about the existence of your machine. In between those two points, there's no clear line.
Getting killed hurts. Getting portscanned is painless and meaningless, unless you didn't secure your system, in which case you're in trouble anyway.
Then you need better glasses.
Your list of metaphorical intrusions and indignities doesn't leave anything to analogize for actual attacks.
You're not going to be able to map the full cycle of casing, analysis, attack, and penetration to the burglary story unless you pace yourself a little.
Remember perspective, it's a wonderful thing.
Completely untrue.
For instance, before we even think of getting involved in a client project that requires working together with another IT service provider, we do a port-scan "drive-by" to see whether that provider exhibits basic competence.
If it shows that they aren't paying attention to security, in this day and age, it's clear that this company is much too far behind to make it worth the trouble of partnering with. I'm not interested in educating third parties who aren't paying us, and I'm not interested in the potential of taking the fall for their incompetence.
We also get port scanned by our competition now and then. I don't think they have any intention of attacking us; they're just doing basic intelligence-gathering. They want to know what platforms we've used for various clients, and so on. Doesn't bother me at all.
If that were truly the issue, you could use traps.
You're quite right. In my experience, however, the desire to possess a gun correlates pretty strongly with the stupidity and instability that make it dangerous.
Of course there are. DNS. HTTP with non-keepalive-capable client and/or server.
It can't request it if the protocol doesn't allow for it.
Well we're all glad that's sorted out. All someone has to do is modify nmap so it sends a protocol-correct packet after each connect() and it's no longer a port scanner?
You'd have to be pretty damn amateurish to pull something like that.
A proper port scanning setup distributes packets across all target machines currently of interest, from a number of source addresses, at random intervals, over a decent period of time.
The only thing that matters (and only occasionally) is that it has a reverse DNS entry that matches some forward DNS entry. It doesn't have to match whatever additional name(s) you gave it. And to the best of my knowledge, AT&T cable customers are assigned IP numbers with matching forward and reverse DNS.
I'm thinking that you're just sad to learn that your machine doesn't show up in logs and wtmp with the name you want. As for that - which is unimportant at best - you're out of luck unless you go with a less mass-market provider. Others have suggested Speakeasy, and I'd agree.
No ISP on the planet has "lots" of OC-192 international links, particularly not intercontinental.
UUnet, the biggest player out there, has two OC-48s between Europe and North America.
P.S. Look up "palpable" and "palpitate" in the dictionary sometime.
Um, only the issuing source (or, depending on how it was sent, another server in the same domain) CAN read the cookies.
The issue comes about when sites exchange data correlating cookies to other data behind the scenes.
Which reminds me, Sealand - having no natural resources other than salt water and a finite supply of hardened concrete - is particularly vulnerable to siege.
If I were so motivated, it would not be terribly expensive for me to drive up their energy and food costs beyond what they could profitably afford, just by harassing delivery craft/helicopters.
The situation is unbalanced because my tactical objective is open-ended and simple (hassle them any way I can) whereas theirs is specific and complex (get particular supplies to a particular place with a particular minimum volume/frequency). This unbalance remains even if they have sufficient funds to hire mercenary protection. Furthermore, failure on my part has no cost, while failure on their part means the end of their operation.
And that doesn't even get into the fragility of their data link.
If they are taking the position that they are sovereign, and they have no defense arrangements with any actual governments, then from an practical perspective their position is fundamentally untenable in the face of even halfway-determined adversity.
The British government hasn't recognized anything as sovereign until the Foreign Office says so, either explicitly or by establishing formal diplomatic relations.
Just because some judge somewhere made a goofy decision doesn't obligate the entire government to a position on a matter of international significance.
If a traffic judge in North Dakota accepts my home-made Seborga driver's license, does that mean that the United States of America suddenly recognizes a third micro-state within Italy's borders? I think not.
Who doesn't recognize Taiwan as a country? Everyone who would otherwise have an embassy in a country of that region/size/trade volume/global significance/proximity has either a "trade office" or a "special liaison office" in Taipei, staffed exactly the same as an embassy (the US uses a fictional department but all the people are drawn from State/DOD/Commerce and of the same ranks you'd find in a real embassy), looking just like an embassy, performing the same functions as an embassy, and run by the respective foreign ministries.
This is not even vaguely similar to Sealand, which retains its unmolested status because it just hasn't been worth anyone's trouble. Taiwan, on the other hand, has been a whole lot of trouble (in terms of difficulties with China) and yet the world's governments have collectively poured billions into their relationship with it. Just no comparison at all.
That's not legitimacy, it's just another example of "not worth the trouble." If I dance around you at a bar throwing peanuts at your head and saying you're my pet monkey, and you make to punch me and then I start scratching at you like a little girl and then you back off in disgust, it doesn't mean you really are my pet monkey. It just means you didn't find it worth your trouble to pummel me.
Then perhaps you're oversensitive. Why would, say, an Iranian care how Koreans were characterized in a little story about video games?
Oh, come on. You mean the reason the US' per capita incarceration rate vastly exceeds that of, say, Canada, is because the Canadians are busily executing everyone in sight?
The reason that the US has so many people in prison is that the US is alone among industrialized countries in the extent to which it criminalizes victimless crimes such as personal use of marijuana.
Get the personal-use offenders out of jail and the US starts looking like anywhere else.
What fascist country? Do you know what the word means? The only arguable fascist involved in the situation was Fulgencio Battista.
The United States is a democratic country whose process in this domain has been somewhat perverted by a wealthy Cuban expat community, resulting in a poorly-conceived and ultimately pointless embargo.
Keep your facts straight and your points will be much more convincing.
When someone resists arrest, the police are authorized to use such force as is necessary and sufficient to make the arrest. They are not authorized to then go ahead and beat the person senseless as punishment. Police are not authorized to punish under any circumstances.
Fortunately the police do not, as I've said above, have that authority.
In any case, the real advice is, don't argue unless you are going to be good at it.
Police officers have as much a knack for self-preservation as anyone else, and they can tell if you know the boundaries between your rights and theirs.
-- raju1kabir, who is a nonwhite male, and who argues with mishebaving police any chance he gets, and sports no broken bones as a result.
Apparently you, like the judge, are ignorant of the law.
The police are not there to provide punishment. If Rodney King deserved anything for his behavior, that decision is not to be made by police officers. It is to be made by a court from a menu of legally-sanctioned choices.
Once you say that a police officer is justified in selecting and carrying out punishment in the field, you might as well abandon any pretense of justice. Just use the money you're spending on courts to hire and outfit a great big pack of thugs, and set them loose on the streets to beat anyone who "deserves" it.
Not that it's anyone's dream to be colonized and overrun by Europeans, but as such things go, the Maori have it pretty darn well off.
Rather than being subjugated, they signed a peace treaty with the British - which the British actually more or less adhered to, because their attempts to conquer the Maori by force were not exactly wildly successful.
Today, Maori is a national language in New Zealand, taught in all schools, and available for use in all official transactions. There isn't another place on earth that can say that (okay, maybe Paraguay). Maori are far more a part of the mainstream society in terms of social and political influence as well as economic participation than the Aborigines in Australia or the Native Americans in the USA and Canada.
My guess here is that you have a relatively small group of silly people who've decided to try to make news, not some major mass movement fueled by widespread righteous outrage.