ISPs are going to start firewalling off more and more ports because of the fact that Windows is insecure. But more importantly, customers don't care enough about the problems to deal with their own responsiblity: securing their own machines.
Many ISPs already filter the standard windows NetBIOS ports (137-139, i think) because of possible attacks.
I think this opens an interesting problem. If people don't start taking their own computer's security seriously, other people will be forced to -- their ISPs. Will ISPs become liable then if attacks do take place?
Yeah, okay. I am not sure of any ham radio based ISPs in the US, however, such a thing would be illegal and impractical for several reasons: First of all, it is illegal to use amateur radio as a commercial service. * It's illegal to use encryption or voice scrambling over amateur radio. This would make things like https, ssl, and ssh, illegal to use over the service. * the customers of the service would have to have amateur radio licenses as well as the ISP. * It is illegal to transmit profanity over amateur radio.
As a CS major, the intro CS classes at my school recently switched from teaching Java to Python. The class is designed to teach the fundamentals of computer science and computer pogramming. Python is extremely easy to learn, and quite powerful. We used the free text How to Think Like a Computer Scientist as the course textbook. I recommend this text to anyone interested in learning Python as a first programming language.
Because public schools have to provide an education to everyone. Mentally/physically handicap, etc. Private schools can kick people out who have low test scores, or not accept people in at all.
one of the worst possible things that can happen to a government program is..... that is becomes successfull. At that point it becomes an entrenched bureauocracy that sucks the air out ofanything else that might have been a viable or healthy alternative. The moon race isn't the only example, SSI, public education, medicade/medicare are all drastic and sorry failures.
Drastic and sorry failures? Do you have any evidence to back your claims that all of these programs are failures?
Let us imagine for a moment what things would be like without public education. For one, a lot of children would receive *no* education. Either because their parents could not afford it, or because their parents did not believe that education is a necessary component of a democratic society. Secondly, many high school graduates (of private high schools) would not be able to attend college. Even public college tuition is expensive these days.
Another interesting thing about publicly funded research is that it benefits everyone. The goal of publicly funded programs is to benefit our society as a whole. The goal of privately funded programs is to make money for the company. If something isn't ultimately profitable, it won't get funded, even if it is beneficial in other ways.
I think you're being a little pedantic here. I illustrated my point well enough for it to be worthwhile to others in this discussion. I guess I probably should have pointed out that banning video games would probably not help that much in the long run. Sort of a treating the symptoms vs curing the disease. There are still kids who are messed up who may just as well be negatively impacted by violent movies instead.
I absolutely agree with this. I think that some types of video games can incite certain types of behavior in certain types of people. Certain people tend to resonate with the violence they see more than others.
It does not make sense to ban violent games. In doing that, you'd have to ban anything that could be construed as an influence on people who react violently to their environment.
Video games are an easy target because the very name "video games" is so general, and so broad. It's more difficult to do finger-pointing at a specific target because the public may not identify with it. Also, the solution to a general problem is to simply limit it, because then its impact on society will be limited.
I think the real problem here is these kids are in home or social situations that are fundamentally unstable, and have been a good portion of their lives...let's see you ban that! yeah, I'd love it if we could. It would solve a lot of problems
Re:What about teachin them some math, physics and
on
Wi-Fi Woods
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I can't freakin' believe some shcools are wasting money this midlessly.
I dunno. Technology is cheap relative to the cost of paying teachers, administrators, etc. Like it or not, technology is becoming more and more a part of our world. Pervasive technologies such as 802.11 and PDAs will continue to grow. Giving kids technology like this at a young age will only make them more comfortable with it when they are older.
Just because that's the way school was for you when you were growing up does not mean it has to be that way for kids now. Just because things are different does not mean they are worse.
Technology can be a distraction.
on
Wi-Fi Woods
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I know first hand, that technology in this kind of setting can be a distraction to some students. They may want to mess around with the technology rather than learning about what the teachers want the technology to teach the students. But I think this is okay, because it's okay to mess around with technology, right?
So long as the students learn *something* I see this as valuable.
IPSec is great and all, but there are a few disadvantages to using it:
1) It doesn't work on many platforms such as pre OS X 10.2, pre Win2k, or many "stock" Linux installs. (Linux requires a kernel patch, though this will change with kernel 2.6)
2) It is difficult for users to configure. There's no GUI in OS X to configure it, and setting it up in Windows involves installing some extra stuff from MS to make it work.
3) Implementation compatbility? I don't know how much of this is still an issue, but I imagine that it comes up...
4) Ethernet layer security. There's still no security that would prevent people from having access to the ethernet layer. The point of WEP was to prevent people without the key from joining the network. Controlling access to the ethernet layer is important for security because anyone with access (Which would be the case with WEP turned off) can still do nasty things like flood the network with broadcast traffic, send unsolicited arp replies to the router to DoS different machines, etc...
in short, IPSec requires too much configuration on the client end. Unless you can put together a nifty script for each platform that needs to use the network, it will be too difficult for most users to configure.
I think I'd prefer Debian over an OpenBSD system, here's why:
OpenBSD requires that you rebuild stuff when a security update is released. This requires gcc to be installed, and enough disk space to actually build on, as well as enough memory, etc. Here is some info about how you patch OpenBSD: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq10.html#Patches
Debian is a binary distribution. All that needs to happen is you download updated packages built by someone else, and drop them in place. No need for a compiler, and all of the build dependencies to rebuild whatever when a security problem is found.
The problem with Ritalin is that it tends to remove a person's sense of right and wrong. ALL of the kids who were involved in these mass school shootings were on Ritalin or similar substances. Obviously, it doesn't usually affect a person to that degree, but the effect is there nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, we do have an open source DVD player for Linux. At least three of them in fact:
xine
mplayer
VideoLAN client
The only thing that's illegal is the CSS decryption libraries needed to play most (but not all) CSS "protected" DVDs.
ISPs are going to start firewalling off more and more ports because of the fact that Windows is insecure. But more importantly, customers don't care enough about the problems to deal with their own responsiblity: securing their own machines.
Many ISPs already filter the standard windows NetBIOS ports (137-139, i think) because of possible attacks.
I think this opens an interesting problem. If people don't start taking their own computer's security seriously, other people will be forced to -- their ISPs. Will ISPs become liable then if attacks do take place?
They regulated it the same way they regulate normal over the air broadcasts, for the profanity bit anyway. This is the FCC we're talking about.
Yeah, okay. I am not sure of any ham radio based ISPs in the US, however, such a thing would be illegal and impractical for several reasons:
First of all, it is illegal to use amateur radio as a commercial service.
* It's illegal to use encryption or voice scrambling over amateur radio. This would make things like https, ssl, and ssh, illegal to use over the service.
* the customers of the service would have to have amateur radio licenses as well as the ISP.
* It is illegal to transmit profanity over amateur radio.
Please moderate this appropriately (down)
As a CS major, the intro CS classes at my school recently switched from teaching Java to Python. The class is designed to teach the fundamentals of computer science and computer pogramming. Python is extremely easy to learn, and quite powerful. We used the free text How to Think Like a Computer Scientist as the course textbook. I recommend this text to anyone interested in learning Python as a first programming language.
Because public schools have to provide an education to everyone. Mentally/physically handicap, etc. Private schools can kick people out who have low test scores, or not accept people in at all.
Drastic and sorry failures? Do you have any evidence to back your claims that all of these programs are failures?
Let us imagine for a moment what things would be like without public education.
For one, a lot of children would receive *no* education. Either because their parents could not afford it, or because their parents did not believe that education is a necessary component of a democratic society.
Secondly, many high school graduates (of private high schools) would not be able to attend college. Even public college tuition is expensive these days.
Another interesting thing about publicly funded research is that it benefits everyone. The goal of publicly funded programs is to benefit our society as a whole. The goal of privately funded programs is to make money for the company. If something isn't ultimately profitable, it won't get funded, even if it is beneficial in other ways.
How many of us here on slashdot are going to get tricked in this manner? For those of us on Mac or *n*x systems the difference is obvious.
No.
For all you kids at home with nothing to do and no Apple IIgs I recommend this fine emulator available at:
http://kegs.sourceforge.net/
And you shouldn't either. Anyone who makes their business decisions like this based on what SCO has said deserves to lose.
I think you're being a little pedantic here. I illustrated my point well enough for it to be worthwhile to others in this discussion.
I guess I probably should have pointed out that banning video games would probably not help that much in the long run. Sort of a treating the symptoms vs curing the disease. There are still kids who are messed up who may just as well be negatively impacted by violent movies instead.
I absolutely agree with this. I think that some types of video games can incite certain types of behavior in certain types of people. Certain people tend to resonate with the violence they see more than others.
It does not make sense to ban violent games. In doing that, you'd have to ban anything that could be construed as an influence on people who react violently to their environment.
Video games are an easy target because the very name "video games" is so general, and so broad. It's more difficult to do finger-pointing at a specific target because the public may not identify with it. Also, the solution to a general problem is to simply limit it, because then its impact on society will be limited.
I think the real problem here is these kids are in home or social situations that are fundamentally unstable, and have been a good portion of their lives...let's see you ban that! yeah, I'd love it if we could. It would solve a lot of problems
I was able to grab the html only. None of the PDFs or PPTs linked to it:- docs.htm
The mirror is here:
http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~workmj/cryptome.org/rfid
I dunno. Technology is cheap relative to the cost of paying teachers, administrators, etc. Like it or not, technology is becoming more and more a part of our world. Pervasive technologies such as 802.11 and PDAs will continue to grow. Giving kids technology like this at a young age will only make them more comfortable with it when they are older.
Just because that's the way school was for you when you were growing up does not mean it has to be that way for kids now. Just because things are different does not mean they are worse.
I know first hand, that technology in this kind of setting can be a distraction to some students. They may want to mess around with the technology rather than learning about what the teachers want the technology to teach the students. But I think this is okay, because it's okay to mess around with technology, right?
So long as the students learn *something* I see this as valuable.
that DNA tests either matched -- or they didn't. Where is this "close enough" stuff coming from?
Use larger, slower fans when possible. They move the same amount of air as smaller, faster fans, but without the noise.
IPSec is great and all, but there are a few disadvantages to using it:
1) It doesn't work on many platforms such as pre OS X 10.2, pre Win2k, or many "stock" Linux installs. (Linux requires a kernel patch, though this will change with kernel 2.6)
2) It is difficult for users to configure. There's no GUI in OS X to configure it, and setting it up in Windows involves installing some extra stuff from MS to make it work.
3) Implementation compatbility? I don't know how much of this is still an issue, but I imagine that it comes up...
4) Ethernet layer security. There's still no security that would prevent people from having access to the ethernet layer. The point of WEP was to prevent people without the key from joining the network. Controlling access to the ethernet layer is important for security because anyone with access (Which would be the case with WEP turned off) can still do nasty things like flood the network with broadcast traffic, send unsolicited arp replies to the router to DoS different machines, etc...
in short, IPSec requires too much configuration on the client end. Unless you can put together a nifty script for each platform that needs to use the network, it will be too difficult for most users to configure.
I think I'd prefer Debian over an OpenBSD system, here's why:
OpenBSD requires that you rebuild stuff when a security update is released. This requires gcc to be installed, and enough disk space to actually build on, as well as enough memory, etc.
Here is some info about how you patch OpenBSD: http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq10.html#Patches
Debian is a binary distribution. All that needs to happen is you download updated packages built by someone else, and drop them in place. No need for a compiler, and all of the build dependencies to rebuild whatever when a security problem is found.
I have mirrored the page here:r otest/index.html
http://kr.mnsu.edu/~workmj/www.kuwan.net/scoAntiP
In this pic you can see that Darl McBride has his arms around two of the protestors:
http://mirror.lug-nut.com/mcnabb/med/IMG_0057.JPG
correlation != causation.
A lot of the developments that have made disks so high capacity came from spintronics research. Here is a link to an article on Scientific American about how it works: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A73 5-759A-1CDD-B4A8809EC588EEDF