You can safely rest assured, that at least in the case of my freind, that things are OK.
The specific problem was based on state policy, rather than Big Brother. Could Big Brother be a problem for him? Possibly, but probably not. In his specific installation, keystroke monitors other similar tools (or "toys" as you call them) are strictly forbidden to be used. This, depending upon the act, could cause a curious IT worker would be subject to disiplinary procedulre, lose his or her job, or even found in contempt of court. However, they are allowed, and do monitor Internet traffic.
As far as outside security, with the careful use, and some help from software and regular system audits, he is reasonably protected. Completely secure? No. Complete security would come from non-networked computer.
As a side note, everything he has done has been done with his IT department's blessings. There was a policy that forbade "personal" use of network resources. A few visits to his eTrade account spawned a few nasty grams sent his way. His dial-up connection, configuration and security measures all meet the needs of his IT department.
I try to comment on the most relevant points of a discussion, leaving the impertanant details out.
Thanks again for your kind words. I will wipe the drool from my face and go help him out.
Wouldn't the ideal AA solution having AA support directly in X? Seems like using the window manager to deal with font manipulation adds more layers of complexity.
I have to laugh every time I see these things. They look like miniature toilet seats.
I once had lunch with a marketing manager in the Intel consumer products division. (This was not her product!) I asked why they made them look like... before I said it, she interrupted, and said "I know, don't say it."
Who has the biggest engine? This question was part of the muscle car wars fought by the automakers in the 1960's. It would not have worked if Ford introduced a 427 cid engine and GM countered with a 400 cid, calling it the GM4500.
It took a while, but consumers learned that some smaller engines had greater horsepower than another, larger engines. (I won't even talk about torque in this discussion!) The same will hold true for CPU speed. By obfuscating the clock speed, consumers may believe that they are being lied to. AMD believes that Intel is obfuscating speed issue by concentrating on clock speed. In a real sense, they both are.
Intel does a few things very well. Marketing is one of them. I remember a commercial about 6 - 7 years ago where Intel warned customers about using an alternate brand of math co-processor. It featured a "jack-in-the-box" plugged in into the motherboard. This would be minor league compared to what they could do next. Intel has great brand recognition, and people are familiar with "those funny blue guys". I have to believe that there are folks in a conference room this very minute planning the bombs they will be dropping in the form of TV commercials.
IMHO, AMD should have played the game the same way Intel has. A mass-market educational marketing campaign could have been devistating to Intel. Instead, they have handed Intel the combination to their safe.
Couldn't do it for $200 if all the parts were new. (At least using common PC hardware. You could build an embedded device in volume for that, but that's not my point.) Most IT folks that I know have lots of old hardware hanging out with nothing to do.
Couple of hours. Not the for the first time, at least it wasn't for me the first time I did something similar. Certainly, there is a learning curve. However, once complete, it would take very little time to duplicate this effort. Factor the time over multiple units, and this is no longer an issue.
Sure you can spend $185 for a solution that works almost out of the box, but it's more fun to MacGyver something together using obsolete equipment around you and a minimal amount of cash.
Why not turn bridging on in the kernel and bridge to an internally connected 802.11b card.
I used to work for (company unnamed, but you have heard of them) a place that developed a stand-alone product where the "bridged mode" is done exactly this way. (It was still in development when I left, and I don't believe it is yet on the market.) Bridging performance was about the same as other 802.11b access point devices.
While the platform was a bit differant (StongARM and mini-PCI cards) there is no reason you couldn't do the same with a P166 sitting in the closet, a card bus controller and a cheap 802.11 card.
Re:Bandwith without connectivity is worthless
on
Make Your Own DSL
·
· Score: 2, Informative
While the dry pair does go through the CO, it can be connected to another dry pair to another location at the CO.
Check your local PUC for the tarriffs, and see if this is a mandated service. (It probably is.) If the phone company tells you that they can't do it, show them the tarriff. If it's tarriffed, THEY HAVE TO SUPPLY IT.
There is a bunch of cool stuff you can do... Within the city WAN's for cheap or maybe split the cost off Internet T1 bandwidth with another company, etc.
Yes, it is a public internet. I understand how routing works. Really. (It's what I do.)
I am not looking at this from the real (technical) perspective, but from that from a legal perspective. You see, down here in the US of A we are burdoned with a stupid law written by people who don't understand how things work. It has forced us US citizens to look at the world with differant eyes. If someone is looking at something that was not intended for them, and did something to see it, no matter if it's protection is lame or not, it is a violation of the law.
The packet headers, yes are seen my routers. It is intended to be seen by routers. The payload of the packet may also be intended to be interpeted by routers, but the actual content was intended for the destination IP shown in the header, not anyone else.
Oh, let's please keep the conversation civil, shall we?
How can they define piracy? I know I am parsing words here, but it is important.
There is no way for them to determine if the data I am recieving is a violation of a copyrite; There is no way for them to know my agreement with the copyright holder, or if my use of the copywritten material would be under fair use of the copyright.
A real example from last week - I found that my DVD software disk was scratched. I cold not reinstall the software. I have a friend that also has the same software. He "rar"ed the contents of the CD, and I downloaded it from his FTP server. I still held myh orginal key. I decompressed the archive and installed the software, using my software key. All legitimate use. Not a copyright infringement. Not piracy.
So now then, how does this look to the drone in sector 7G at @Home? He sees that I am downloading RARs of a popular DVD title. His conclusion? Piracy. A wrong conclusion indeed. Over reaction from Slashdotters? No. Even those that play by the rules get burnt by this.
Since the traffic that is going to you contains a TCP header that contains your destination (your IP address), that traffic is intended to be recieved only by YOU. Any interception of this could be seen as an attempt to circumvent your digital security.
Anything that your ISP, or anyone else for that matter, gets as a result of sniffing traffic that was not intended for them is a violation of the DCMA.
IPs are used to identify people by the anti-piracy folk and by ISPs. IPs can be spoofed, sometimes far more easily than other forms of assumed identity. ISP's know this, but the threat of litigation forces them to be the DCMA's lackey.
Every time I look at the Caldera logo, I don't 'see' it as intended: It looks like a red globe with part of the classic Mickey (one ear and part of his face) shadowed in Blue.
A half-gig download - Obsiously this is for broadband subcribers only. With cable companies selling both Internet bandwidth and TV services, including Pay Per View.
It won't take the cable companies long to figure out that they would be loosing valuable Pay Per View money when the movies is delivered via IP. What would the cable comanies next move be? Daily download limitations? Then sell a new package with Unlimited bandwidth?
If you take business away from the cable companies using their own pipe, it will piss them off. Their revenge will be at their subcriber's expense.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the FSF; I believe it is more important for everyone to have freedom, even if it does reduce individual freedom.
But everyone does not have freedom if it is reduced for some, but not others. Forcing a person, corporation etc., evil or not, to pay to help their competitor's profitibility by virtue of a foreced software licence absolutly removes liberty. An example:
I own a company - Spacely Sprockets. I want a new some new software that will increase my efficiancy. This software does not exist, and there is no interest for development of this software outside of my industry. I can't code my way out of a paper bag. The only way to get this software is to commission it - either by hiring a development team, or by hiring an indepentant developer. Anyway you look at it I have to pay. Let's say for the sake of argument that the development costs are... one million dollars. OK. The numbers work out. It will pay for itself in a couple years. I sign the big check and my company can operate more efficiently. I bought the development of the software, but if I can't have a licence for it that allows me to control it, my competitor, Cogswell Cogs, will have all of the benefits of my million dollar project, without having to pay let loose of some serious coin. Cogswell can then have the increased effeciancy without the expense. He can sell his competing product for less than I can, and possibly put me out of business. All on my dime. If this licence limitation is there, I would never have the software developed.
My liberty to create the software is there, but the price of liberty is dear indeed.
Re:OK, thats it. I'm reading that fucking book
on
Taming the Web
·
· Score: 1
I would be impressed if you make it through the radio speech without skimming.
Back when I was in college in the late 80's (till about '91 or so) I used to deliver pizza to the Dynamix office.
Eventually, they got an charge account. The old bookkeeper thought they were a cement mixing company (she always pronounced it dyna-mix.) When she found out it was a software company, she thought that giving them a charge account wasn't a bright move, as she said "computers are just a flash in the pan".
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for your concern.
You can safely rest assured, that at least in the case of my freind, that things are OK.
The specific problem was based on state policy, rather than Big Brother. Could Big Brother be a problem for him? Possibly, but probably not. In his specific installation, keystroke monitors other similar tools (or "toys" as you call them) are strictly forbidden to be used. This, depending upon the act, could cause a curious IT worker would be subject to disiplinary procedulre, lose his or her job, or even found in contempt of court. However, they are allowed, and do monitor Internet traffic.
As far as outside security, with the careful use, and some help from software and regular system audits, he is reasonably protected. Completely secure? No. Complete security would come from non-networked computer.
As a side note, everything he has done has been done with his IT department's blessings. There was a policy that forbade "personal" use of network resources. A few visits to his eTrade account spawned a few nasty grams sent his way. His dial-up connection, configuration and security measures all meet the needs of his IT department.
I try to comment on the most relevant points of a discussion, leaving the impertanant details out.
Thanks again for your kind words. I will wipe the drool from my face and go help him out.
You assume much.
He is never connected to the buildings network when he is dialed in.
Not trying to start a flame war or anything, but why do you assume that other people would be dense on this?
I have a friend who is a circuit court judge. A couple of years ago his IT department began monitoring and limiting his Internet access.
His solution? He bought a dial-up account and had an analog phone line installed in his courthouse office.
Is this going to replace the current tagline, HP - Invent?
Wouldn't the ideal AA solution having AA support directly in X? Seems like using the window manager to deal with font manipulation adds more layers of complexity.
I have to laugh every time I see these things. They look like miniature toilet seats.
I once had lunch with a marketing manager in the Intel consumer products division. (This was not her product!) I asked why they made them look like... before I said it, she interrupted, and said "I know, don't say it."
Who has the biggest engine? This question was part of the muscle car wars fought by the automakers in the 1960's. It would not have worked if Ford introduced a 427 cid engine and GM countered with a 400 cid, calling it the GM4500.
It took a while, but consumers learned that some smaller engines had greater horsepower than another, larger engines. (I won't even talk about torque in this discussion!) The same will hold true for CPU speed. By obfuscating the clock speed, consumers may believe that they are being lied to. AMD believes that Intel is obfuscating speed issue by concentrating on clock speed. In a real sense, they both are.
Intel does a few things very well. Marketing is one of them. I remember a commercial about 6 - 7 years ago where Intel warned customers about using an alternate brand of math co-processor. It featured a "jack-in-the-box" plugged in into the motherboard. This would be minor league compared to what they could do next. Intel has great brand recognition, and people are familiar with "those funny blue guys". I have to believe that there are folks in a conference room this very minute planning the bombs they will be dropping in the form of TV commercials.
IMHO, AMD should have played the game the same way Intel has. A mass-market educational marketing campaign could have been devistating to Intel. Instead, they have handed Intel the combination to their safe.
(
Couldn't do it for $200 if all the parts were new. (At least using common PC hardware. You could build an embedded device in volume for that, but that's not my point.) Most IT folks that I know have lots of old hardware hanging out with nothing to do.
Couple of hours. Not the for the first time, at least it wasn't for me the first time I did something similar. Certainly, there is a learning curve. However, once complete, it would take very little time to duplicate this effort. Factor the time over multiple units, and this is no longer an issue.
Sure you can spend $185 for a solution that works almost out of the box, but it's more fun to MacGyver something together using obsolete equipment around you and a minimal amount of cash.
Pringles New Fangled Potato Chip.
If they only knew.
The artilce mentions 'DVR', not 'PVR'.
I know what a DVR is, but what is a PVR?
So I wonder if A 2.4 GHz machine will interfere with it's own 802.11b?
Why not turn bridging on in the kernel and bridge to an internally connected 802.11b card.
I used to work for (company unnamed, but you have heard of them) a place that developed a stand-alone product where the "bridged mode" is done exactly this way. (It was still in development when I left, and I don't believe it is yet on the market.) Bridging performance was about the same as other 802.11b access point devices.
While the platform was a bit differant (StongARM and mini-PCI cards) there is no reason you couldn't do the same with a P166 sitting in the closet, a card bus controller and a cheap 802.11 card.
While the dry pair does go through the CO, it can be connected to another dry pair to another location at the CO.
Check your local PUC for the tarriffs, and see if this is a mandated service. (It probably is.) If the phone company tells you that they can't do it, show them the tarriff. If it's tarriffed, THEY HAVE TO SUPPLY IT.
There is a bunch of cool stuff you can do... Within the city WAN's for cheap or maybe split the cost off Internet T1 bandwidth with another company, etc.
I have done it.
I also used to work at a telephone company.
It's not BS.
I agree with you more than you understand.
Yes, it is a public internet. I understand how routing works. Really. (It's what I do.)
I am not looking at this from the real (technical) perspective, but from that from a legal perspective. You see, down here in the US of A we are burdoned with a stupid law written by people who don't understand how things work. It has forced us US citizens to look at the world with differant eyes. If someone is looking at something that was not intended for them, and did something to see it, no matter if it's protection is lame or not, it is a violation of the law.
The packet headers, yes are seen my routers. It is intended to be seen by routers. The payload of the packet may also be intended to be interpeted by routers, but the actual content was intended for the destination IP shown in the header, not anyone else.
Oh, let's please keep the conversation civil, shall we?
How can they define piracy? I know I am parsing words here, but it is important.
There is no way for them to determine if the data I am recieving is a violation of a copyrite; There is no way for them to know my agreement with the copyright holder, or if my use of the copywritten material would be under fair use of the copyright.
A real example from last week - I found that my DVD software disk was scratched. I cold not reinstall the software. I have a friend that also has the same software. He "rar"ed the contents of the CD, and I downloaded it from his FTP server. I still held myh orginal key. I decompressed the archive and installed the software, using my software key. All legitimate use. Not a copyright infringement. Not piracy.
So now then, how does this look to the drone in sector 7G at @Home? He sees that I am downloading RARs of a popular DVD title. His conclusion? Piracy. A wrong conclusion indeed. Over reaction from Slashdotters? No. Even those that play by the rules get burnt by this.
The DCMA could be our friend here.
Since the traffic that is going to you contains a TCP header that contains your destination (your IP address), that traffic is intended to be recieved only by YOU. Any interception of this could be seen as an attempt to circumvent your digital security.
Anything that your ISP, or anyone else for that matter, gets as a result of sniffing traffic that was not intended for them is a violation of the DCMA.
This is a problem.
IPs are used to identify people by the anti-piracy folk and by ISPs. IPs can be spoofed, sometimes far more easily than other forms of assumed identity. ISP's know this, but the threat of litigation forces them to be the DCMA's lackey.
Every time I look at the Caldera logo, I don't 'see' it as intended: It looks like a red globe with part of the classic Mickey (one ear and part of his face) shadowed in Blue.
...it won't be a "Pavilion"
Yes!
A half-gig download - Obsiously this is for broadband subcribers only. With cable companies selling both Internet bandwidth and TV services, including Pay Per View.
It won't take the cable companies long to figure out that they would be loosing valuable Pay Per View money when the movies is delivered via IP. What would the cable comanies next move be? Daily download limitations? Then sell a new package with Unlimited bandwidth?
If you take business away from the cable companies using their own pipe, it will piss them off. Their revenge will be at their subcriber's expense.
Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the FSF; I believe it is more important for everyone to have freedom, even if it does reduce individual freedom.
But everyone does not have freedom if it is reduced for some, but not others. Forcing a person, corporation etc., evil or not, to pay to help their competitor's profitibility by virtue of a foreced software licence absolutly removes liberty. An example:
I own a company - Spacely Sprockets. I want a new some new software that will increase my efficiancy. This software does not exist, and there is no interest for development of this software outside of my industry. I can't code my way out of a paper bag. The only way to get this software is to commission it - either by hiring a development team, or by hiring an indepentant developer. Anyway you look at it I have to pay. Let's say for the sake of argument that the development costs are... one million dollars. OK. The numbers work out. It will pay for itself in a couple years. I sign the big check and my company can operate more efficiently. I bought the development of the software, but if I can't have a licence for it that allows me to control it, my competitor, Cogswell Cogs, will have all of the benefits of my million dollar project, without having to pay let loose of some serious coin. Cogswell can then have the increased effeciancy without the expense. He can sell his competing product for less than I can, and possibly put me out of business. All on my dime. If this licence limitation is there, I would never have the software developed.
My liberty to create the software is there, but the price of liberty is dear indeed.
I would be impressed if you make it through the radio speech without skimming.
Back when I was in college in the late 80's (till about '91 or so) I used to deliver pizza to the Dynamix office.
Eventually, they got an charge account. The old bookkeeper thought they were a cement mixing company (she always pronounced it dyna-mix.) When she found out it was a software company, she thought that giving them a charge account wasn't a bright move, as she said "computers are just a flash in the pan".