I really wish people would stop focusing on the INTERCHANGE format and focus on the abstract implementation details.
Just about any heirachial store CAN be implemented in a relational database -- they are called "intersection entities".
Trivial and fast (when indexed) to Manage one-to-many and many-to-many relationships.
Complete with constraint checks if you so desire.
The greatly exaggerated demise of ODBMS should point out the problem of adoption: What problem does this solve that I cannot solve using what I already know?
or to parody Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurrasic Park
"you were so busy using BLOBS in relational databases, you didn't stop to consider whether you SHOULD":P
Cost is certainly an issue with PC104 -- however for what he's asking for (EMACS => Eight Megs And Counting) -- he could probably pickup some low end 486 cpu modules and run quite happy.
Processor wise, there are more than just x86 options available, but again, is portability the real issue? if so, why does it matter which processor is on board?
formfactor is also not an issue. certainly the original intent was 'stackable' -- however I have seen flatboards that provide the bus on the board that allows you the opportunity to put the modules side by side
its a matter of balancing the resources and the needs/desires.
with pc104 the thing really could be in the "wearable" class of computer, as a swank utility belt wrapped around the midsection
and given whatever dietary needs he has, he might have room for a "wide bus";)
The government frequently coerces individuals into plea bargains for actual crimes not committed.
I suspect, and we have not hear from Brian in this case since the legalese, but it certainly could have stemmed from a converstation such as:
FEDS: "Did you download the PERL code?"
BKW: "yes, by clicking on the link i was able to view the code and save it to disk as proof of the security hole"
FEDS: "could you have modified that code?"
BKW: "yes, anyone could have?
FEDS: "the plaintiff contends that the PERL code in question is worth at least $5000. Could you have modfied that code and profited from such modfications?"
BKW: "i could have, but my intention was to notify the newspaper and let them know of the security breach"
FEDS: "no further questions"
How easily this crowd is swayed from one side to the other. For once, think about your own actions. The concept of "downloading" and "accessing" a password file and then "logging into unauthorized areas" of a website -- give me a break. "Authorization" is based on who as the password, however it may have been obtained. If you have a hole in your security, fix it. "proper access" is another matter, but even there, it is amorphous. A trusted employee one day can become a "non-trusted" ex-employee the next. There are no "tangible trust tokens" to speak of. Its all a matter of perspective.
Did Brian actually *MODIFY* or DEFACE the site? Does it really matter what his *INTENTIONS* or *CAPABILITIES* were?
In this country our rule of law is based on evidence, not "possible evidence" -- I think about setting off fireworks in the state of Minnesota every Fourth of July -- i have access to "illegal" fireworks over the border in Wisonsin year-round. I have "intention" to set them off -- but I don't actually do it. Am I guilty?
When I contacted the Poteau Daily News after this story broke, they categorically denied that Mr. Burchett contacted the FBI, but rather stated that the hosting ISP had initiated the prosecution, a copy of that letter follows:
My point? If you're going to light the torches and burn someone to the stake, at least make sure you're not a pyromaniac.
-d
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:27:26 -0500
From: Poteau Daily News & Sun <pdns@pdns.com>
To: Team BPSI <team@backpack.net>
Subject: Re: Confirmation please
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
The Poteau Daily News does not own or manage the web server that is in
question and did not contact any authorities in this case. The sever is
located, owned, and managed by the local ISP.
At the time of this incident there was some propieritary software being used
in conjuction with this site (the software is NOT the property of the Poteau
Daily News). What the story posted by Brian West, does not talk about is
that the propiertary software was downloaded from the server and at the time
of the FBI investigation, it was found in the possesion of Mr. West.
Mr Burchett did not contact any authorities, they were contacted by the
local ISP. And at this time Mr. Burchett is no longer at the Poteau Daily
News, not for any thing concerning this matter.
The Poteau Daily News is not involved in this case at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Team BackPack" <team@backpack.net>
To: <pdns@pdns.com>; <publisher@pdns.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 11:03 PM
Subject: Confirmation please
http://www.linuxfreak.org/post.php/08/17/2001/13 4. html
please confirm/comment on the validity of this story
Bin Laden doesn't even need encryption
on
Blaming Encryption
·
· Score: 1
Steganography (information hidding, as in using unused bits in an image file) make the target almost impossible to hit anyway, regardless of whether the message was sent as an email or not
Don't forget that using massive "one-time pads" where there is virtually no discernable pattern are virtually impossible to break -- imagine taking a picture of yourself with the remote recipient -- give them a copy of the file on a floppy, and then xor all your communication with that person against that image file -- the key as it were, can be larger than the document itself.
Even Bruce Schneier of Counterpane agrees that Bin Laden is more than likely just using old-fashioned spoken word to direct his network. He is somewhat of a religious leader, and its pretty clear what his "will" is, so doing things within the bounds of that "end goal" can be done without really centralized management.
Think of the POPE -- and the catholics -- the Pope gives a speech, calling on the catholics to do X -- the goal is well known, but the pope doesn't tell the "how it gets accomplished"
i think at the 'network' level you are free and clear to protect the resources
i don't see that filtering out various ports is any different than the LEC's installing band-pass-filters to shutdown things like "blue-boxes" of yester-year;)
now, that stated, "content-filtering" is a different matter all together. a port-block is indiscriminate
filtering out content based on some criteria, IMHO, implies some level of responsibility on the part of the ISP -- which is why we don't do it (other than allowing our clients to "opt-out" of banner-ads etc by electing to use a filtering proxy, but it is by no means enforced on the masses.
a well-crafted end user access agreement would go along way to establishing the responsibilities. in the light of this most recent attack, i think i'm going to have ours tuned up so that it includes specific language about temporary disconnects in the case of virii infection
This is JMHO, but the several projects that I've been close to you end up having, what I call "the starry-eyed visionary" syndrome -- akin to a leader of a small religous group.
You have someone who has a vision, and is dispensing the coolaid, and as long as your ideas are not too far off "center" you're in the circle -- meaning you have their support and adoration.
If not? well, look at how we came to have OpenBSD? (which, by the way is not a knock on Theo at all -- i happen to like diversity and the work *and* the particular vision that Theo has)
I think to some extent it comes down to expectation management -- and having a clearly defined "roadmap" on the project can mitigate some of the hard feelings.
There are "user-level" implementation suggestions and of course "developer-level" implemenation suggestions as well -- you see this in the MUD's all the time -- players either eventually get tired of playing a given mud, or get IMM status and are drawn into the circle -- or the usual case, they just split off and start their own thing.
Again, the parrallels in corporate entities, or religious analagoies -- its the same.
Chalk it up to inter-personal dynamics, ala human nature.
i agree, 8 months (even in canada) is probably enough to make the kid think twice -- and hopefully other kids
what is interesting was canada's cooperation in this matter -- if you are going to run, head south;)
kidding aside for a moment taco, what punishment do you think would actually be reasonable?
slapping him with a huge ridiculous fine that he'd never be able to pay wouldn't have any teeth.
and really, while I think DOS attacks deserve mitnick like sentencing on the kiddies, the protocols and the peering naps should be able to solve this -- its tech, fight it with tech.
Slashdot Mirror
Altos 580
;)
there it is in all its glory
I used MP/M - a multiuser/multitasking version of MPM on what i think was an Altaire?? in High School back in the mid-80's
To think where the lowly PC would be now...
Its often easy to blame the arrogance of Gary for blowing off IBM -- but to some extent it was one of those golden opportunities
kind of funny...the arrogance of someone who thought they could say no --vs-- the arrogance of someone who thought they could say yes
Who knew?
I really wish people would stop focusing on the INTERCHANGE format and focus on the abstract implementation details.
:P
Just about any heirachial store CAN be implemented in a relational database -- they are called "intersection entities".
Trivial and fast (when indexed) to Manage one-to-many and many-to-many relationships.
Complete with constraint checks if you so desire.
The greatly exaggerated demise of ODBMS should point out the problem of adoption: What problem does this solve that I cannot solve using what I already know?
or to parody Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurrasic Park
"you were so busy using BLOBS in relational databases, you didn't stop to consider whether you SHOULD"
Lite Brite?
Now if we could just get that kind of dazzling brilliance and the happy children singing songs to our spreadsheets
Cost is certainly an issue with PC104 -- however for what he's asking for (EMACS => Eight Megs And Counting) -- he could probably pickup some low end 486 cpu modules and run quite happy.
;)
Processor wise, there are more than just x86 options available, but again, is portability the real issue? if so, why does it matter which processor is on board?
formfactor is also not an issue. certainly the original intent was 'stackable' -- however I have seen flatboards that provide the bus on the board that allows you the opportunity to put the modules side by side
its a matter of balancing the resources and the needs/desires.
with pc104 the thing really could be in the "wearable" class of computer, as a swank utility belt wrapped around the midsection
and given whatever dietary needs he has, he might have room for a "wide bus"
PC104 is an old, but still very usable reference platform for building embedded devices.
Hit this google link
Google Search on PC104
It has a much greater use/life in Europe than it ever did here in the States.
The little modules are stackable, and they make little "backplane" like boards for you to put the modules.
Or as Egg Chin in Big Trouble in Little China said, "Its like your salad bar -- we take what we want, and leave the rest for everyone else"
once you accept it in yourself you can continue to condemn it in other people !
oh yeah, and regression testing
and breaking up the samples and doing alternate testing
not to mention the really really BIG machines we have to do the type of analysis that won't fit in a spaceship going there
let alone the fuel to get it back
If he was going to modify the script for profit, WTF would he notify the newspaper of the security hole?
I mean really, can anyone be _THAT_ arrogant and stupid?
Oh wait...who am i preaching to
</flamebait off>
only outlaws will have themes!
The government frequently coerces individuals into plea bargains for actual crimes not committed.
3 4. html
I suspect, and we have not hear from Brian in this case since the legalese, but it certainly could have stemmed from a converstation such as:
FEDS: "Did you download the PERL code?"
BKW: "yes, by clicking on the link i was able to view the code and save it to disk as proof of the security hole"
FEDS: "could you have modified that code?"
BKW: "yes, anyone could have?
FEDS: "the plaintiff contends that the PERL code in question is worth at least $5000. Could you have modfied that code and profited from such modfications?"
BKW: "i could have, but my intention was to notify the newspaper and let them know of the security breach"
FEDS: "no further questions"
How easily this crowd is swayed from one side to the other. For once, think about your own actions. The concept of "downloading" and "accessing" a password file and then "logging into unauthorized areas" of a website -- give me a break. "Authorization" is based on who as the password, however it may have been obtained. If you have a hole in your security, fix it. "proper access" is another matter, but even there, it is amorphous. A trusted employee one day can become a "non-trusted" ex-employee the next. There are no "tangible trust tokens" to speak of. Its all a matter of perspective.
Did Brian actually *MODIFY* or DEFACE the site? Does it really matter what his *INTENTIONS* or *CAPABILITIES* were?
In this country our rule of law is based on evidence, not "possible evidence" -- I think about setting off fireworks in the state of Minnesota every Fourth of July -- i have access to "illegal" fireworks over the border in Wisonsin year-round. I have "intention" to set them off -- but I don't actually do it. Am I guilty?
When I contacted the Poteau Daily News after this story broke, they categorically denied that Mr. Burchett contacted the FBI, but rather stated that the hosting ISP had initiated the prosecution, a copy of that letter follows:
My point? If you're going to light the torches and burn someone to the stake, at least make sure you're not a pyromaniac.
-d
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 09:27:26 -0500
From: Poteau Daily News & Sun <pdns@pdns.com>
To: Team BPSI <team@backpack.net>
Subject: Re: Confirmation please
[ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
The Poteau Daily News does not own or manage the web server that is in
question and did not contact any authorities in this case. The sever is
located, owned, and managed by the local ISP.
At the time of this incident there was some propieritary software being used
in conjuction with this site (the software is NOT the property of the Poteau
Daily News). What the story posted by Brian West, does not talk about is
that the propiertary software was downloaded from the server and at the time
of the FBI investigation, it was found in the possesion of Mr. West.
Mr Burchett did not contact any authorities, they were contacted by the
local ISP. And at this time Mr. Burchett is no longer at the Poteau Daily
News, not for any thing concerning this matter.
The Poteau Daily News is not involved in this case at all.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Team BackPack" <team@backpack.net>
To: <pdns@pdns.com>; <publisher@pdns.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 11:03 PM
Subject: Confirmation please
http://www.linuxfreak.org/post.php/08/17/2001/1
please confirm/comment on the validity of this story
Steganography (information hidding, as in using unused bits in an image file) make the target almost impossible to hit anyway, regardless of whether the message was sent as an email or not
Don't forget that using massive "one-time pads" where there is virtually no discernable pattern are virtually impossible to break -- imagine taking a picture of yourself with the remote recipient -- give them a copy of the file on a floppy, and then xor all your communication with that person against that image file -- the key as it were, can be larger than the document itself.
Even Bruce Schneier of Counterpane agrees that Bin Laden is more than likely just using old-fashioned spoken word to direct his network. He is somewhat of a religious leader, and its pretty clear what his "will" is, so doing things within the bounds of that "end goal" can be done without really centralized management.
Think of the POPE -- and the catholics -- the Pope gives a speech, calling on the catholics to do X -- the goal is well known, but the pope doesn't tell the "how it gets accomplished"
its self defense to some extent
;)
i think at the 'network' level you are free and clear to protect the resources
i don't see that filtering out various ports is any different than the LEC's installing band-pass-filters to shutdown things like "blue-boxes" of yester-year
now, that stated, "content-filtering" is a different matter all together. a port-block is indiscriminate
filtering out content based on some criteria, IMHO, implies some level of responsibility on the part of the ISP -- which is why we don't do it (other than allowing our clients to "opt-out" of banner-ads etc by electing to use a filtering proxy, but it is by no means enforced on the masses.
a well-crafted end user access agreement would go along way to establishing the responsibilities. in the light of this most recent attack, i think i'm going to have ours tuned up so that it includes specific language about temporary disconnects in the case of virii infection
yeah yeah, they didn't publish in an open-spec
;)
i'm Applixware user (currently anyway -- i don't like staroffice's desktop metaphor, i want my dox floating in their own icons as first class apps)
.RTF, while originally from Microsoft provides a decent interchange format
but XML is it baby for interchange in the future
that and it GZip's so nice with all that PHAT text in there
yeah not to mention when someone hacks the system and just redirects the planes remotely
I heard from a friend on crew that it was now a matter of security and of "trained" demo folks
its a dangerous area now that its wet
the liability is pretty high
Pakistan is going in to deliver the first round
but you gotta realize
it might actually be someone else behind it
we've been pissing of Iraq thoroughly for a lot longer than we have Bin Laden
and don't forget Libya...
Jeezus, unless they put it in the Satellites, what good will it do while they turn our planes into bombs.
This is JMHO, but the several projects that I've been close to you end up having, what I call "the starry-eyed visionary" syndrome -- akin to a leader of a small religous group.
You have someone who has a vision, and is dispensing the coolaid, and as long as your ideas are not too far off "center" you're in the circle -- meaning you have their support and adoration.
If not? well, look at how we came to have OpenBSD? (which, by the way is not a knock on Theo at all -- i happen to like diversity and the work *and* the particular vision that Theo has)
I think to some extent it comes down to expectation management -- and having a clearly defined "roadmap" on the project can mitigate some of the hard feelings.
There are "user-level" implementation suggestions and of course "developer-level" implemenation suggestions as well -- you see this in the MUD's all the time -- players either eventually get tired of playing a given mud, or get IMM status and are drawn into the circle -- or the usual case, they just split off and start their own thing.
Again, the parrallels in corporate entities, or religious analagoies -- its the same.
Chalk it up to inter-personal dynamics, ala human nature.
Is there a municipal airport near both ends?
You might be better of flying in at least two or three days a week.
Possibly look to shack up with someone else in the company, or get a small 1BR apt.
The other option is to lure a TOP engineer or other management out to this location
It works for us, but then again, we're ISP :)
only outlaws will have 'em.
anything else you need to point out in the "bleeding obvious category" ?
what is interesting was canada's cooperation in this matter -- if you are going to run, head south ;)
kidding aside for a moment taco, what punishment do you think would actually be reasonable?
slapping him with a huge ridiculous fine that he'd never be able to pay wouldn't have any teeth.
and really, while I think DOS attacks deserve mitnick like sentencing on the kiddies, the protocols and the peering naps should be able to solve this -- its tech, fight it with tech.
Now if we can just get them to open up the cable networks like they promised to.....