But I also maintain that this is strictly Google's fault (The Open Hanset Alliance).
They took an operating system, Linux, which always has long the ability to put hardware drivers in dynamically loadable modules and built Android, where they compiled everything into the kernel in one huge binary blob. This is a huge retrograde step in OS design. The kernel should be replaceable without having to replace the driver for every radio, screen, sound chip.
After all, the radio didn't gain any new functionality between Android releases. The same carrier specific radio "rom" the phone was shipped with should suffice. Just call it dynamically rather than compile it into the kernel. Let us get our kernel updates directly from Google, or the handset manufacturer, and any carrier specific updates from the carrier.
Agreed, an investigation into the pricing of broadband is needed. We saw recently that Timer Warner boosts speeds with no price increase when faced with competition. While everywhere else they continue to charge the same high prices.
But you also could have mentioned that government managed public wifi will once again demonstrate the Tragedy of the Commons as it slips inevitably into a cesspool of hackers, over-saturated bandwidth, government monitoring, censorship, and the never ending cries of "won't somebody please think of the children".
I'm not adverse to someone making a profit on providing wifi. It keeps their interest in providing a good service high. Still we manage to regulate phone companies, power companies, without government ownership and the invasive consequences* that government ownership brings.
* This being slashdot, it seems only proper to mention that I'm not at all convinced what you characterize as "unintended consequences" are in fact unintended.
The simplest solution is to use their student ID or student information system identifier (numeric usually and not their actual student ID). Example: student_id@domain.tld, with the display name assigned to be the student's name.
But Simple is probably not in the vocabulary of a university that let their address space balloon to 350 Domains in the first place. Seriously, how does something like that happen?
But you have to ask, why bother setting this up at all? EVERY student entering college these days already has an email address (or maybe 3 or 8).
It would seem the only people that benefit from a numerical student ID based address would be the school administration, so that they could send email to all students without having to think, or even bother to look up the IDs in the on line records. Yet college administration are the one group most capable of looking up everyone in an on-line database, so why do they need a numerical ID?
Just use the student's existing Email address.
In the mean time, consider that not every student WANTS a publicly known or guessable email address. Most students don't know, and probably shouldn't have to know anyone else's student ID number.
There are benefits to the school of NOT maintaining a huge mail server when other sources will do this for free. First of course is the cost, second the policing that is required.
I've never had a facebook account, (and look with deep suspicion at anyone who has), but I personally know and employ people who have hundreds and perhaps thousands of "friends" who they barely knew, but couldn't deny "friending" just to be polite.
So, port knocking is secure as long as nobody is listening in anywhere at all between your computer and the remote computer?
Kickass security there. Wouldn't it just be easier to use telnet? Same level of security (just requires nobody between you and the end host), but at least it asks for a password, and a password has a lot more complexity than 65535^4 possibilities.
People smart enough to set up port knocking don't use it as a substitute for private/public key encryption, they simply use it to keep the system from having to fend off dictionary attacks, by keeping the target ports closed. Even after you knock a port open, you still need to authenticate.
There is very little difference between malicious programs being able to create its own outbound connections and being able to accept inbound connections: In either case, the malicious software is able to communicate and can accomplish whatever nefarious task its creators envision.
Bullshit.
If your device has a reason to create an outbound connection, it is (for the most part) limited to one connection to one place for a specific purpose. (Disregarding intentionally buggered on-board software designed with malicious intent). So your cloths dryer can send you an email telling you its on fire, or your tablet can fetch your email, and stuff like that.
However, as pointed out in the present article, even a disbeliever like you should see that opening an inbound port is an entirely different affair. An inbound port is open to the entire world, anyone can connect, and, (baring any on-device security), they can do pretty much anything the device is capable of doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, to a certain extent.
But I also maintain that this is strictly Google's fault (The Open Hanset Alliance).
They took an operating system, Linux, which always has long the ability to put hardware drivers in dynamically loadable modules and built Android, where they compiled everything into the kernel in one huge binary blob. This is a huge retrograde step in OS design. The kernel should be replaceable without having to replace the driver for every radio, screen, sound chip.
After all, the radio didn't gain any new functionality between Android releases. The same carrier specific radio "rom" the phone was shipped with should suffice. Just call it dynamically rather than compile it into the kernel. Let us get our kernel updates directly from Google, or the handset manufacturer, and any carrier specific updates from the carrier.
This is a packaging error.
Agreed, an investigation into the pricing of broadband is needed. We saw recently that Timer Warner boosts speeds with no price increase when faced with competition. While everywhere else they continue to charge the same high prices.
But you also could have mentioned that government managed public wifi will once again demonstrate the Tragedy of the Commons as it slips inevitably into a cesspool of hackers, over-saturated bandwidth, government monitoring, censorship, and the never ending cries of "won't somebody please think of the children".
I'm not adverse to someone making a profit on providing wifi. It keeps their interest in providing a good service high. Still we manage to regulate phone companies, power companies, without government ownership and the invasive consequences* that government ownership brings.
* This being slashdot, it seems only proper to mention that I'm not at all convinced what you characterize as "unintended consequences" are in fact unintended.
The simplest solution is to use their student ID or student information system identifier (numeric usually and not their actual student ID).
Example: student_id@domain.tld, with the display name assigned to be the student's name.
But Simple is probably not in the vocabulary of a university that let their address space balloon to 350 Domains in the first place.
Seriously, how does something like that happen?
But you have to ask, why bother setting this up at all?
EVERY student entering college these days already has an email address (or maybe 3 or 8).
It would seem the only people that benefit from a numerical student ID based address would be the school administration, so that they could send email to all students without having to think, or even bother to look up the IDs in the on line records. Yet college administration are the one group most capable of looking up everyone in an on-line database, so why do they need a numerical ID?
Just use the student's existing Email address.
In the mean time, consider that not every student WANTS a publicly known or guessable email address.
Most students don't know, and probably shouldn't have to know anyone else's student ID number.
There are benefits to the school of NOT maintaining a huge mail server when other sources will do this for free. First of course is the cost, second the policing that is required.
I've never had a facebook account, (and look with deep suspicion at anyone who has), but I personally know and employ people who have hundreds and perhaps thousands of "friends" who they barely knew, but couldn't deny "friending" just to be polite.
Erm...full disclosure, I worked in casinos, and also don't feel like being constantly under surveillance, either...
Just WHERE in a casino can you WORK and not be under constant surveillance?
So, port knocking is secure as long as nobody is listening in anywhere at all between your computer and the remote computer?
Kickass security there. Wouldn't it just be easier to use telnet? Same level of security (just requires nobody between you and the end host), but at least it asks for a password, and a password has a lot more complexity than 65535^4 possibilities.
People smart enough to set up port knocking don't use it as a substitute for private/public key encryption, they simply use it to keep the system from having to fend off dictionary attacks, by keeping the target ports closed. Even after you knock a port open, you still need to authenticate.
There is very little difference between malicious programs being able to create its own outbound connections and being able to accept inbound connections: In either case, the malicious software is able to communicate and can accomplish whatever nefarious task its creators envision.
Bullshit. If your device has a reason to create an outbound connection, it is (for the most part) limited to one connection to one place for a specific purpose. (Disregarding intentionally buggered on-board software designed with malicious intent). So your cloths dryer can send you an email telling you its on fire, or your tablet can fetch your email, and stuff like that. However, as pointed out in the present article, even a disbeliever like you should see that opening an inbound port is an entirely different affair. An inbound port is open to the entire world, anyone can connect, and, (baring any on-device security), they can do pretty much anything the device is capable of doing.