then to the much nicer 85, and finally to the 89 when I hit calc.
I got an 85 in middle school and I hated it. This might be because I didn't take the time to learn it very well, and none of the teachers/students had one. But it was just much different from the other TI-8x models. Maybe it was just me. Anyway my 89 I do love very much (and read the whole manual for, and the teacher supported). Unfortunately, I've had two classes now where the teacher said you could "cheat" with an 89, so they wern't allowed.
I've seen Magic: The Gathering and the National Spelling Bee on ESPN. If those two aren't geeky, I don't know what is. Also, they are showing the World Series of Poker a lot lately - which I consider pretty hackerish. You have mathmatical calculations and lots of social engineering - what more could a geek want?
every individual gets their own block of addresses. Therefore it is easier to track terrorists and make America a safer place
Every broadband user gets an IP address and usually for a long period of time. And all their traffic usually comes from that.
What makes tracking IPv6 blocks easier? Is the government going to assign blocks to people at birth, and keep a database?
You know, that would be kind of interesting. Instead of a Social Security Number, everyone has a 32bit (or whatever) string as their IPv6 network blok prefix and identification # for everything.
As reported before, the US Department of Defense is going to become fully IPv6 compliant by 2008 and purchasing only IPv6 compliant devices starting in October (see this press release).
Will they make full compliance by 2008? Probably not, knowing how government institutions work. However, DoD purchases a lot of computers, a lot of networked devices, etc. I remember hearing about 70% of their traffic goes accross the Internet (years ago, and they create a lot of traffic.) They have been a big influence on the 'net in the past, and I think this will be a big catalyst to IPv6 in the future.
I was listening to the webcast of one of the HOPE cnventions, or maybe I read it in 2600. Anyway, the idea was to take a small hand held radio that could also transmit. Park between say a Taco Bell and a McDonalds. Find the send frequencies and receive frequencies for both the drive-up speakers. The fun part: broadcast the McD's send to the TacoBell receive, and vice versa, and with the other store. Hillarity ensued.
It's not a case of doctors being 'evil', simply that if there's incentive for you to be dead, they might be pushed to make that decision about you while you still have a chance of 'coming back'.
What incentive are you talking about? The doctors don't get money for killing organ donors. It's not like there's an award for "most patients declared dead with organ donation status" award. I can't think of a single incentive for a medical professional for killing (including deficient care, or premature death declaration) a patient - except that the organs can save many more lives or just one less patient to have to deal with. And I think there's some oath or something that says they aren't supposed to cause harm - maybe that's just a myth too.
My mom is a nurse, and she has told me that someone is really really dead before they start removing organs for donation. You people are spreading FUD, and costing lives. Good work.
I didn't overlook money. I specifically addressed it. No - I didn't point out that money is used to sell the product, you already know that. I refuted this position that money is all important in an election or to elected officials. So, I will say it again, no one gets elected from money - they get elected from votes. Is the public ill informed and unaware of most situations? Probably. Is this my fault? No. If the people can afford to not care, who am I to argue? I vote because I want to. Many people don't vote, also because they (don't) want to. That's the nice thing about living in a free society - you can make decisions for yourself.
For all these reasons (and many more), countries like USA are really plutocracies--not democracy!
Actually the US is a republic. Some people like to call this a "representative democracy" but that violates the tenant of everyone directly being the government in a democracy, doesn't it?
The unsurprising truth about most such affairs is that governments rarely spend money because it benefits their constituents, they generally spend it because it benefits their friends, and themselves.
I see the argument made time after time, so I will try and make a counterpoint. I will grant you that the vast majority of people (and politicians are mere people, keep this in mind) want to have money and power - and the more of both the better. So how does a politician gain power? By either getting elected to higher and higher offices (in the US from say city government to state government, maybe up to governor and senator, etc.) or by gaining favor with the national parties (the RNC or the DNC) either by helping others run successful campaigns or having the money to influence and power in some other respect (say big buisness.)
Stay with me. The lynchpin here is that gaining power involves being elected to a high office or being appointed to a major position (cabinet, head of an agency, etc) by someone who is, once again, elected to a high position.
So - how do politicians get elected (and returning to the argument about money and politics)? Well - the people, and that means you and me, have to give him votes. I hear you saying "no - it's cause they have money!" but that is simply not true. Ballot boxes (or electronic voting machines these days) don't get stuffed with money. I've yet to see dollar ammounts on the ballot to vote for (you do vote, right?) Just having tons of money does not equal getting elected. A politician has to actually get votes by constituents. Big businesses (or small buisnesses, or cats, or dogs) cannot vote.
That is key. You the voter has infinately more power in the political process than any buisness because only you can vote, and only votes get a person elected to office.
In summary: if you don't like your politicians getting tons of money (kickbacks, or just campaign funds) then stop voting for them. Money does not an election victory make - votes are what count.
a big blender (slurry tank) that mixed the little paper sheddings with water/bleaches/detergants to make a fine paper pulp
Did the process actually work, or did it constantly get blocked up and require massive work to unclog it? Also, did it turn out that the stuff being shipped to recycling still had "undigested" strips that contained data?
Why do we have to accept break ins? OpenBSD hasn't had a vulnerability disclosed in months now. Does that mean there are no vulnerabilities? No. Is an OpenBSD box pretty much unusable out of the box? Pretty much yes. But the thing is if you keep things simple, they should be easy to audit. Bugs should be easy to detect and fix.
You get into trouble when you start piling on feature after feature after feature. Is all of that really needed?
Denial of Service is, unfortunately, harder to deal with. But when you have your own network, it's much easier to deal with. Dependancy on the Internet still creates a problem (the majority of US government data communication is done via the Internet). It comes down to a cost benefit analysis - is it worth building a totally seperate network? For the military, I'd say yes.
Wouldn't it be simpler and possibly easier to outfit each patient with an RFID tag? I mean - that way there would be no confusion if a patient switched beds. The hospital could track all patient information in a database keyed on this tag. Then when nurses/doctors/security walk up they can easily scan and get all the relevant personal information.
Even better is that the hospital could then sell this information to preferred buisness partners (such as Wal Mart). This will allow the hopsital an alternative source of revenue, and thus your hospital stay would be cheaper (it's the economy stupid.) And the next time you walk into a Wal Mart or some other affiliate store with a pharmacy, they can start filling your perscription so by the time you get to the pharmacist he can greet you by name and hand you your pills. This would virtually eliminate botched perscriptions and be good for the environment (no need for the doc to sign dead tree for a script.)
i don't know of any firewall which could prevent this. please correct me if i'm wrong in this point
According to the article: I found the Destination Options header having no use yet. So make it have one
I'm not sure what the standard says about what this field should say. And even if it defines something, another question is what stacks will actually do with this field. Anyway - one way to stop this would be to zero this field on everything going out and comming into the firewall. The problem, of course, is that if this field actually serves a pourpose this will break the functionality. A way to detect and monitor this type of channel is to inspect that field on all the packets. If stacks are zeroing the field, then it should be easy to detect machines employing this technique. But as soon as a major vendor releases a stack that doesn't do that, this ceases to be a good detection method.
This all makes some big assumptions. How many admins will actually recognize this threat? How many will care? How many will take steps to mitigate it?
The thing I find fascinating is he invented and implemented this method without realizing what he was doing.
This is known as a covert channel. Depending on what is going on this is useful or a security risk. For example, an employee could smuggle out data from a network possibly under the radar of most IDSes and the eyes of net admins. Replace employee with political prisioner, or spy, or whathave you.
2003-06-22 06:11:55 55808 Trojan Analysis (articles,security) (accepted)
That time is GMT. So I submitted it well before the first incarnation of this article was posted. Also, sorry for my bad spelling.
They are directed at many ports (which are closed on my system), but each originator tries several times.
This is consistant with this analysis posted to Bugtraq. They believe it is a distributed port scanner. It has to scan the same host multiple times because it spoofs source addresses, so an infection somewhere on the network of the target has to sniff the results off and then log this back somewhere else.
Re:O'Reilly's worst dud was also about Linux clust
on
Linux Clustering
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Sell it on e-bay in a few years. The rare/novelty factors should make it sell for better than what you bought it at - there's your refund plus interest.
Since the Novell system technically met the (old) requirements drafted up, there wasn't any way to mandate a change.
Which isn't helpful because the people drawing up the requirements will often put their same bias in so that only one system (the one they like the most) can meet them. You're even advocating it in your post- you (or the rest of the base) don't seem to like Novell even though it met the requirements, and you (or they) wanted the requirements changed so that Novell would not be an option. It's the wonder of bureaucracy.
One idea that was being passed around was to have an access point on the aircraft that would broadcast a 'forbidden' command to all the wireless devices which would tell them to play nice
Uhh, if the point is to not have these transmissions, why would a device dedicated to making these same transmissions be a suggested solution?
People if you run a system that can run these programs then run them. They pose no risk to you and only benifit the user
Not so fast there buddy. Snort has had remote vulnerabilities in the past. Tripwire isn't perfect either.
The simple fact is that any additional piece of software increases your risk. You must assess this and do what is appropriate for your particular situation.
No, your wrong. You cannot create a secure WiFi network.
Sure you can, using the same methods to create a secure wired network.
You can layer cruft on top and pretend it's secure but when I can send a disconnect to your wifi clients and have them associate with my rouge network, I own your ass.
VPN. Man in the middle is inconsequential: all data is encrypted to the VPN gateway, so you can't read the data. If I can't get to the VPN I know something is up.
A lot of these posts are talking about the security of wired networks, and wireless networks are insecure. Tcpdump and a collision domain is compromised. Dsniff and a broadcast domain is potentially compromised. IPsec is one of the few if not only ways to secure IP traffic on a network.
One good thing about our current point in time is that Windows users have to choose between the widely compatible FAT32, with it's maximum filesystem size of 32GB, or to use a Microsoft-only filesystem like NTFS.
According to Microsoft, FAT32 drives can be up to ~8TB, however the provided formatting utility can only format up to 32GB (Microsoft Knowledge Base Article 184006. I recall reading that the Win ME boot disk can format larger partitions (because I have about 40GB I want to format on here to be a partition to share between FreeBSD and Win2K).
Follow this with the obligatory "I just installed 3.2 yesterday, time to wait for the/. effect to die down so i can upgrade:(" post and we have a complete set of comments that are made for every single new release of a piece of software story.
Slashdot Mirror
Work smarter, not harder I say.
What makes tracking IPv6 blocks easier? Is the government going to assign blocks to people at birth, and keep a database?
You know, that would be kind of interesting. Instead of a Social Security Number, everyone has a 32bit (or whatever) string as their IPv6 network blok prefix and identification # for everything.
As reported before, the US Department of Defense is going to become fully IPv6 compliant by 2008 and purchasing only IPv6 compliant devices starting in October (see this press release).
Will they make full compliance by 2008? Probably not, knowing how government institutions work. However, DoD purchases a lot of computers, a lot of networked devices, etc. I remember hearing about 70% of their traffic goes accross the Internet (years ago, and they create a lot of traffic.) They have been a big influence on the 'net in the past, and I think this will be a big catalyst to IPv6 in the future.
I was listening to the webcast of one of the HOPE cnventions, or maybe I read it in 2600. Anyway, the idea was to take a small hand held radio that could also transmit. Park between say a Taco Bell and a McDonalds. Find the send frequencies and receive frequencies for both the drive-up speakers. The fun part: broadcast the McD's send to the TacoBell receive, and vice versa, and with the other store. Hillarity ensued.
My mom is a nurse, and she has told me that someone is really really dead before they start removing organs for donation. You people are spreading FUD, and costing lives. Good work.
Stay with me. The lynchpin here is that gaining power involves being elected to a high office or being appointed to a major position (cabinet, head of an agency, etc) by someone who is, once again, elected to a high position.
So - how do politicians get elected (and returning to the argument about money and politics)? Well - the people, and that means you and me, have to give him votes. I hear you saying "no - it's cause they have money!" but that is simply not true. Ballot boxes (or electronic voting machines these days) don't get stuffed with money. I've yet to see dollar ammounts on the ballot to vote for (you do vote, right?) Just having tons of money does not equal getting elected. A politician has to actually get votes by constituents. Big businesses (or small buisnesses, or cats, or dogs) cannot vote.
That is key. You the voter has infinately more power in the political process than any buisness because only you can vote, and only votes get a person elected to office.
In summary: if you don't like your politicians getting tons of money (kickbacks, or just campaign funds) then stop voting for them. Money does not an election victory make - votes are what count.
Discuss.
Why do we have to accept break ins? OpenBSD hasn't had a vulnerability disclosed in months now. Does that mean there are no vulnerabilities? No. Is an OpenBSD box pretty much unusable out of the box? Pretty much yes. But the thing is if you keep things simple, they should be easy to audit. Bugs should be easy to detect and fix.
You get into trouble when you start piling on feature after feature after feature. Is all of that really needed?
Denial of Service is, unfortunately, harder to deal with. But when you have your own network, it's much easier to deal with. Dependancy on the Internet still creates a problem (the majority of US government data communication is done via the Internet). It comes down to a cost benefit analysis - is it worth building a totally seperate network? For the military, I'd say yes.
Wouldn't it be simpler and possibly easier to outfit each patient with an RFID tag? I mean - that way there would be no confusion if a patient switched beds. The hospital could track all patient information in a database keyed on this tag. Then when nurses/doctors/security walk up they can easily scan and get all the relevant personal information.
Even better is that the hospital could then sell this information to preferred buisness partners (such as Wal Mart). This will allow the hopsital an alternative source of revenue, and thus your hospital stay would be cheaper (it's the economy stupid.) And the next time you walk into a Wal Mart or some other affiliate store with a pharmacy, they can start filling your perscription so by the time you get to the pharmacist he can greet you by name and hand you your pills. This would virtually eliminate botched perscriptions and be good for the environment (no need for the doc to sign dead tree for a script.)
Isn't technology great?
I'm not sure what the standard says about what this field should say. And even if it defines something, another question is what stacks will actually do with this field. Anyway - one way to stop this would be to zero this field on everything going out and comming into the firewall. The problem, of course, is that if this field actually serves a pourpose this will break the functionality. A way to detect and monitor this type of channel is to inspect that field on all the packets. If stacks are zeroing the field, then it should be easy to detect machines employing this technique. But as soon as a major vendor releases a stack that doesn't do that, this ceases to be a good detection method.
This all makes some big assumptions. How many admins will actually recognize this threat? How many will care? How many will take steps to mitigate it?
The thing I find fascinating is he invented and implemented this method without realizing what he was doing.
This is known as a covert channel. Depending on what is going on this is useful or a security risk. For example, an employee could smuggle out data from a network possibly under the radar of most IDSes and the eyes of net admins. Replace employee with political prisioner, or spy, or whathave you.
2003-06-22 06:11:55 55808 Trojan Analysis (articles,security) (accepted) That time is GMT. So I submitted it well before the first incarnation of this article was posted. Also, sorry for my bad spelling.
Sell it on e-bay in a few years. The rare/novelty factors should make it sell for better than what you bought it at - there's your refund plus interest.
The simple fact is that any additional piece of software increases your risk. You must assess this and do what is appropriate for your particular situation.
Follow this with the obligatory "I just installed 3.2 yesterday, time to wait for the /. effect to die down so i can upgrade :(" post and we have a complete set of comments that are made for every single new release of a piece of software story.