If you pirate music or software, you can't make the argument (you could, but it is a stupid argument) that you haven't stolen anything because you copied bits and not a physical item like a CD. You have deprived the copyright owner of the money that is due to them for the production of the bits you stole. Don't go and say that the copyright holder isn't deprived anything because you wouldn't have bought the material in the first place. You copied the bits, therefore you wanted the bits. You just didn't want to pay for the bits.
Whether or not the way the music/movie/book industry works is fair is a red herring in this argument. The fact remains you took something that someone else wants to receive compensation for. Period. It's not the complicated.
Finally, Karl Sigfrid is making the inaccurate assumption that creativity and craft that is desirable by others is an unlimited resource. It a limited resource like any other. If creativity and craft were limitless, we'd all have talent and wouldn't need records, movies, or books. We could make our own entertainment.
Silence on the Wire is a great book. It reminded me of the kind of analysis I used to do back in the 80's when I was automating office applications by hacking DOS programs and figuring out coordinates to do screen scrapes. This was back before we had these fancy windowed UI's. I wasn't doing security work, but I had to really know how the PC behaved and write code flexible enough to handle arbitrary screen sizes and what-not.
For a blind attack, yes. But if you can view the packets on the wire, say in a request, and if you can craft a response and get it to the requester first, you win.
Depends on the company. When I had a problem with my Lenovo T60 and had to send it in for warranty work, the guy on phone told me to pull the HD and remove any bios passwords before sending it in. Luckily the HD is easy to get to.
hah. about 10 years ago, I got a call from an admin at the University of Texas. Seems a host on my network was scanning his network pretty aggressively. Figuring the guy went to the trouble to find person responsible for the offending host, me, I talked to him, got the IP, and finally found the host. It was a web cam. huh. So while I had him on the line, I pulled the cable. Scanning stopped. Put the cable back in, scanning started.
I apologized and pulled the camera off the network. I then plugged it into a disconnected hub and poked around. Linux box running apache and some other crap. A few minutes later, I too p0wned the camera.
about 2 years ago my boss was talking about the security risk in shared network printers. If he wanted a hard copy of something sensitive, he would have to hit Print, and then trot down the hall to get his output before anyone say it. Printers and other IP devices have a host of problems. No news here.
The WAN optimization you describe does work for certain kinds of file transfers like pushing docs, spread, preso's, files, etc around a network. If you have peered appliances, you can see a significant reduction in WAN bandwisth utilization within a few weeks.
It's just compression with a big, honking dictionary built from the bits that have been sent before. Random data, network traffic that is encrypted before hitting the WAN optimizer, and real-time media can't be optimized in the same way (as much as you want your boss to talk faster, you can't make it happen. lol).
The result is that more WAN bandwidth is made available to other traffic. That means real-time media isn't competing for space.
At some point there is going to be a bottle neck. There is an aggregation point. Whether that is in the field or at the central office makes no difference. I have a 20MB down/5MB Up FiOS connection. Let's say my CO has a single GB connection to the "cloud", that means at most 50 similar users could suck down 20 MB/s traffic before impacting others. It's a simple and largely inaccurate illustration, but the point is there will always be a bottle neck.
I haven't experience a particular performance hit because 1) rarely do I ever even get to 20Mb/s *ever* and two, there aren't that many people in the 'hood using FiOS. But if uptake increases, then aggregated performance will become a factor.
"There's too much congestion on the road, so we're sending out cops to stop only the black people from driving on it."
A better analogy and not as inflammatory is to stop old drivers, grey and blue hairs during rush hour because they putz along at 45 MPH in the fast lane which in turn causes other drivers either driving at exceeding the speed limit to change lanes and pass on the right, which in turn causes people drivings slow in the slow lane to brake for ass-hats passing in the right, which causes the blue hairs (remember them) to break because someone in the other lane hit their brakes which leads too...
It was the perfect political opportunity. There was no down side. If WMD is found claim credit. If WMD is not found claim you were deceived.
The Bush Administration deceived first, then tried to rationalize. Not the other way around. For deceit to work, it has to be hidden. That the deceit is coming out now is just a natural progression of history.
In a post 9/11 environment where many were getting crucified for underestimating one enemy it is natural to err on the side of overestimating another. If you were an analyst, what would be the prudent choice when there is doubt, lean towards underestimation or overestimation?
How about assessing the threat accurately rather than burying counter evidence--something the current Bush administration is very adept at and has done in other sectors as well. This isn't a case of "oops, I did it again." The Bush administration systematically painted a picture far more dire than was the case known at that time.
It would be negligent for threat analysts to not consider a scenario where Saddam shares some amount of WMD with terrorists. His support for international terrorism was well documented.
Considering a scenario and acting on it are two very different things. There was a scenario where terrorists flew a plane into a building. There had even been attempts (at least one) made in Europe before 911. But there was no credible evidence at the time of an impending attack during the lead-up to 911. Sure, analysts can look back and put together a path, but I think missing 911 was a big, but honest mistake that anyone could have made.
To your second point, there are lots of countries that support terrorism in Africa and in Asia. All well documented. Why haven't we attacked those countries? If terrorism is such a threat, then we should attack where ever it is. Oh, and while we are at it, let's stop training the "terrorists" in guerilla warfare. The US training of the Taliban to fight the USSR back in the 80's comes to mind.
The attack on Afganistan and Iraq were both unwarranted attacks that have not had the intended effects. Terrorism is not crushed. The threat is still real. That is the result of the misguided philosophy that might makes right.
I think you are overemotional and failing to recognize the classic armchair quarterbacking that you are engaging in.
Duly noted. I get upset about the senseless loss of life.:-|
However, since the start of the war, there have been numerous reports that the Administration misled the American people by inflating the threat. Here is a quote from one such source.
Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above, by:
Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single "WMD threat."
The conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war. (p. 52)
Insisting without evidence--yet treating as a given truth--that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)
Misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire. (p. 53)
Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s), but failed to do so under UN supervision or to properly document it so that the UN could verify after the fact.
Sonny, as an American, I can tell you have been drinking the Kool-aid far too long. Did you not watch the events leading upto and after the Iraq invasion? Yah know, where they couldn't find evidence of WMD's? A little fact like that just might piss some people off.
Here is my little paranoid fantasy of why the US invaded Iraq. First, there is oil. The US has enough, but the powers that be want more. Second, there is this little quote by President George W. Bush: "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time." Thus a personal vendetta that has killed thousands of American solders. Killed many, many more Iraqi civilians. Left a wake of casualties.
godaddy starts sending reminders 4 months out. then one every month or so. Plus you can set to auto-renew. You must keep your email address current, however, to receive the emails.
Remarkably, bluehost.com also sent me a reminder 60 days out when my main domain name, which is NOT registered with them, was going to expire. I am one happy bluehost customer for just those little details.
Point is, if you keep your contact info current, there is no reason to let a domain lapse unless you want it to.
At least in the US, when was the last time you went to a TLD that WASN'T a.com,.net,.edu, or.gov?
Alternative TLD's are great in theory, but the.com TLD is so well branded that it has 'stuck'. Users think everything is a.com. How often have you heard on TV or radio mentioning a TLD other than a.com? Um, never, perhaps?
If alternative TLD's are going to have any uptake, at least in the US, I think a few things need to happen. First, there needs to be some regulation on who can apply for a.com,.name, etc. That way there is some control and differentiation between a business and some other site. Second, there needs to be a marketing campaign to change the way the public views domains. I think it would be great to have a domain name tld like.per for personal sites, but who is going to use it? So if you're looking for cousin joebob, you would think first joebob.per and if you are looking for joebobs hardware, you would think of joebob.com. Third, if #1 and #2 could be acheived, you need to migrate domains to the proper TLD and that will cause a world of hurt. Can you see trying to explain to cousin Joe Bob who knocked up a Drupal site using Fantastico how to 1) change the domain names and then 2) set-up redirects from the old name to the new?
Think about the idea before you cast it off as some simple solution.
Seems more likely that switching between tasks just distracts you from noticing how poorly you're working.
Great truth in there. I know when I multi-task, I don't work nearly as well. I am slower and I can't get to the same level of either creativity or precision needed to really do the job well. Nor do I see the poor performance until after the job is done. Thankfully I don't work in a job where anyone's life is in my hands.
Definetly learn SQL. You will need it. PHP is easy enough to learn and you can start making dynamic web apps quickly. You do want to find some good books and sites that discuss PHP programming. You don't need to know other languages.
It's also that broadband ISP's didn't engineer their networks for the capacity. As neighbor hoods get more populated, contention rises and performance suffers.
Besides, I have a 20mb FiOS down stream and I *never* touch it now, but that might change in the future.
Not all software patents are bad, but bad ones like this are.
software engineering still has room for creative, news ways to perform functions, hence, there is still room for innovative, creative ideas that should be protected. However, patent applications like this one simply degrade the patent process. Clearly this patent should not be awarded and should be summarily dismissed, but there is a process in place that has to be followed.
What I would like to see is a heft fee slapped on people who file bogus patents and waste the USPTO's time. Say a few million dollars. Make the potential expense for filing bad patents exorbitant and public.
Just as in government, there needs to be checks and balances. Giving a single admin too much power is a very bad idea.
Your plan sounds good in theory, but unfortunately, it rarely works in practice. Distinct separation of duties and powers requires a great deal of discipline on the organization. It took an act of congress to force get public companies, and in particular, the executive board, to take responsibility over accounting practices.
Besides, little ot todays software lets you seperate duties in a meaningful way or to require double authorization for critical actions.
2 1/2 years is a light sentence compared to the damage this guy could do. Thankfully, most sysadmins are honest ethical people.
Slashdot Mirror
If you pirate music or software, you can't make the argument (you could, but it is a stupid argument) that you haven't stolen anything because you copied bits and not a physical item like a CD. You have deprived the copyright owner of the money that is due to them for the production of the bits you stole. Don't go and say that the copyright holder isn't deprived anything because you wouldn't have bought the material in the first place. You copied the bits, therefore you wanted the bits. You just didn't want to pay for the bits.
Whether or not the way the music/movie/book industry works is fair is a red herring in this argument. The fact remains you took something that someone else wants to receive compensation for. Period. It's not the complicated.
Finally, Karl Sigfrid is making the inaccurate assumption that creativity and craft that is desirable by others is an unlimited resource. It a limited resource like any other. If creativity and craft were limitless, we'd all have talent and wouldn't need records, movies, or books. We could make our own entertainment.
Silence on the Wire is a great book. It reminded me of the kind of analysis I used to do back in the 80's when I was automating office applications by hacking DOS programs and figuring out coordinates to do screen scrapes. This was back before we had these fancy windowed UI's. I wasn't doing security work, but I had to really know how the PC behaved and write code flexible enough to handle arbitrary screen sizes and what-not.
Man, I miss that gig.
Sure, but how would DNS resolve it?
All I can find a a bunch of copies of the AP article.
For a blind attack, yes. But if you can view the packets on the wire, say in a request, and if you can craft a response and get it to the requester first, you win.
Anyone have a link to the FCC filings? I would like to read those.
Depends on the company. When I had a problem with my Lenovo T60 and had to send it in for warranty work, the guy on phone told me to pull the HD and remove any bios passwords before sending it in. Luckily the HD is easy to get to.
hah. about 10 years ago, I got a call from an admin at the University of Texas. Seems a host on my network was scanning his network pretty aggressively. Figuring the guy went to the trouble to find person responsible for the offending host, me, I talked to him, got the IP, and finally found the host. It was a web cam. huh. So while I had him on the line, I pulled the cable. Scanning stopped. Put the cable back in, scanning started.
I apologized and pulled the camera off the network. I then plugged it into a disconnected hub and poked around. Linux box running apache and some other crap. A few minutes later, I too p0wned the camera.
about 2 years ago my boss was talking about the security risk in shared network printers. If he wanted a hard copy of something sensitive, he would have to hit Print, and then trot down the hall to get his output before anyone say it. Printers and other IP devices have a host of problems. No news here.
The WAN optimization you describe does work for certain kinds of file transfers like pushing docs, spread, preso's, files, etc around a network. If you have peered appliances, you can see a significant reduction in WAN bandwisth utilization within a few weeks.
It's just compression with a big, honking dictionary built from the bits that have been sent before. Random data, network traffic that is encrypted before hitting the WAN optimizer, and real-time media can't be optimized in the same way (as much as you want your boss to talk faster, you can't make it happen. lol).
The result is that more WAN bandwidth is made available to other traffic. That means real-time media isn't competing for space.
At some point there is going to be a bottle neck. There is an aggregation point. Whether that is in the field or at the central office makes no difference. I have a 20MB down/5MB Up FiOS connection. Let's say my CO has a single GB connection to the "cloud", that means at most 50 similar users could suck down 20 MB/s traffic before impacting others. It's a simple and largely inaccurate illustration, but the point is there will always be a bottle neck.
I haven't experience a particular performance hit because 1) rarely do I ever even get to 20Mb/s *ever* and two, there aren't that many people in the 'hood using FiOS. But if uptake increases, then aggregated performance will become a factor.
"There's too much congestion on the road, so we're sending out cops to stop only the black people from driving on it."
...
A better analogy and not as inflammatory is to stop old drivers, grey and blue hairs during rush hour because they putz along at 45 MPH in the fast lane which in turn causes other drivers either driving at exceeding the speed limit to change lanes and pass on the right, which in turn causes people drivings slow in the slow lane to brake for ass-hats passing in the right, which causes the blue hairs (remember them) to break because someone in the other lane hit their brakes which leads too
Well, you get the point.
Does that mean I can't have a jury of my peers, if negative experiences with various kinds of police are part of my ordinary experience?
I almost laughed. Then my brain kicked in.
It was the perfect political opportunity. There was no down side. If WMD is found claim credit. If WMD is not found claim you were deceived.
The Bush Administration deceived first, then tried to rationalize. Not the other way around. For deceit to work, it has to be hidden. That the deceit is coming out now is just a natural progression of history.
In a post 9/11 environment where many were getting crucified for underestimating one enemy it is natural to err on the side of overestimating another. If you were an analyst, what would be the prudent choice when there is doubt, lean towards underestimation or overestimation?
How about assessing the threat accurately rather than burying counter evidence--something the current Bush administration is very adept at and has done in other sectors as well. This isn't a case of "oops, I did it again." The Bush administration systematically painted a picture far more dire than was the case known at that time.
It would be negligent for threat analysts to not consider a scenario where Saddam shares some amount of WMD with terrorists. His support for international terrorism was well documented.
Considering a scenario and acting on it are two very different things. There was a scenario where terrorists flew a plane into a building. There had even been attempts (at least one) made in Europe before 911. But there was no credible evidence at the time of an impending attack during the lead-up to 911. Sure, analysts can look back and put together a path, but I think missing 911 was a big, but honest mistake that anyone could have made.
To your second point, there are lots of countries that support terrorism in Africa and in Asia. All well documented. Why haven't we attacked those countries? If terrorism is such a threat, then we should attack where ever it is. Oh, and while we are at it, let's stop training the "terrorists" in guerilla warfare. The US training of the Taliban to fight the USSR back in the 80's comes to mind.
The attack on Afganistan and Iraq were both unwarranted attacks that have not had the intended effects. Terrorism is not crushed. The threat is still real. That is the result of the misguided philosophy that might makes right.
Duly noted. I get upset about the senseless loss of life.
However, since the start of the war, there have been numerous reports that the Administration misled the American people by inflating the threat. Here is a quote from one such source. Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs, beyond the intelligence failures noted above, by:
- Treating nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a single "WMD threat."
- The conflation of three distinct threats, very different in the danger they pose, distorted the cost/benefit analysis of the war. (p. 52)
- Insisting without evidence--yet treating as a given truth--that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists. (p. 52)
- Routinely dropping caveats, probabilities, and expressions of uncertainty present in intelligence assessments from public statements. (p. 53)
- Misrepresenting inspectors' findings in ways that turned threats from minor to dire. (p. 53)
Here are a bunch of other reports as well.Irag II: Saddam had WMD (used it on Kurdish villagers in the 80s). Was required to get rid of it (90s), but failed to do so under UN supervision or to properly document it so that the UN could verify after the fact.
Sonny, as an American, I can tell you have been drinking the Kool-aid far too long. Did you not watch the events leading upto and after the Iraq invasion? Yah know, where they couldn't find evidence of WMD's? A little fact like that just might piss some people off.
Here is my little paranoid fantasy of why the US invaded Iraq. First, there is oil. The US has enough, but the powers that be want more. Second, there is this little quote by President George W. Bush: "After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time." Thus a personal vendetta that has killed thousands of American solders. Killed many, many more Iraqi civilians. Left a wake of casualties.
Wake the fuck up.
godaddy starts sending reminders 4 months out. then one every month or so. Plus you can set to auto-renew. You must keep your email address current, however, to receive the emails.
Remarkably, bluehost.com also sent me a reminder 60 days out when my main domain name, which is NOT registered with them, was going to expire. I am one happy bluehost customer for just those little details.
Point is, if you keep your contact info current, there is no reason to let a domain lapse unless you want it to.
At least in the US, when was the last time you went to a TLD that WASN'T a .com, .net, .edu, or .gov?
.com TLD is so well branded that it has 'stuck'. Users think everything is a .com. How often have you heard on TV or radio mentioning a TLD other than a .com? Um, never, perhaps?
.com, .name, etc. That way there is some control and differentiation between a business and some other site. Second, there needs to be a marketing campaign to change the way the public views domains. I think it would be great to have a domain name tld like .per for personal sites, but who is going to use it? So if you're looking for cousin joebob, you would think first joebob.per and if you are looking for joebobs hardware, you would think of joebob.com. Third, if #1 and #2 could be acheived, you need to migrate domains to the proper TLD and that will cause a world of hurt. Can you see trying to explain to cousin Joe Bob who knocked up a Drupal site using Fantastico how to 1) change the domain names and then 2) set-up redirects from the old name to the new?
Alternative TLD's are great in theory, but the
If alternative TLD's are going to have any uptake, at least in the US, I think a few things need to happen. First, there needs to be some regulation on who can apply for a
Think about the idea before you cast it off as some simple solution.
Seems more likely that switching between tasks just distracts you from noticing how poorly you're working.
Great truth in there. I know when I multi-task, I don't work nearly as well. I am slower and I can't get to the same level of either creativity or precision needed to really do the job well. Nor do I see the poor performance until after the job is done. Thankfully I don't work in a job where anyone's life is in my hands.
Definetly learn SQL. You will need it. PHP is easy enough to learn and you can start making dynamic web apps quickly. You do want to find some good books and sites that discuss PHP programming. You don't need to know other languages.
Damn, I am going to file a patent.
TIA, brother.
It's also that broadband ISP's didn't engineer their networks for the capacity. As neighbor hoods get more populated, contention rises and performance suffers.
Besides, I have a 20mb FiOS down stream and I *never* touch it now, but that might change in the future.
Not all software patents are bad, but bad ones like this are.
software engineering still has room for creative, news ways to perform functions, hence, there is still room for innovative, creative ideas that should be protected. However, patent applications like this one simply degrade the patent process. Clearly this patent should not be awarded and should be summarily dismissed, but there is a process in place that has to be followed.
What I would like to see is a heft fee slapped on people who file bogus patents and waste the USPTO's time. Say a few million dollars. Make the potential expense for filing bad patents exorbitant and public.
What's new is that the new camera/apps are steadily becoming like a word processor -- both pros and amateurs use the same one,
Oh man, the porn, the porn!
Seriously, can anyone point to a video production product that is anywhere close to the ease of a word processor? And I am being serious.
Just as in government, there needs to be checks and balances. Giving a single admin too much power is a very bad idea.
Your plan sounds good in theory, but unfortunately, it rarely works in practice. Distinct separation of duties and powers requires a great deal of discipline on the organization. It took an act of congress to force get public companies, and in particular, the executive board, to take responsibility over accounting practices.
Besides, little ot todays software lets you seperate duties in a meaningful way or to require double authorization for critical actions.
2 1/2 years is a light sentence compared to the damage this guy could do. Thankfully, most sysadmins are honest ethical people.