"Michelob Ultra is a smooth, refreshing lager with 96 calories, 4.1 percent alcohol by volume and 2.9 grams of carbohydrates per 12-oz. serving."
And personal note: I've been on Atkins for two months (since the Atkins NYT Article previously discussed here) and have lost 25 pounds as of today. No ill effects. And for the first diet in my life, I haven't felt "starved" or "deprived" once.
Perhaps the best sarcastic comment I've seen on this site in a long time. Note to those moderating and/or responding: repair your sarcasm detectors ("oh, a sarcasm detector... real usefull!") and moderate as "Funny" or etc.
For those not "getting it"...
I'm not sure what planet you're on, but cable TV contains a significant amount of advertising.
So-called "basic cable" is rife with advertising. MTV, TBS, TNT, CNN, etc, all have just as much advertising content as the regular broadcast stations.
On to the "premium channels". Movie channels (HBO, Skinimax, etc) certainly contain almost zero outside advertising, but usually contain significant "in-band" advertising for the channel itself (and usually its affiliates). HBO promoting its own shows like "Sex in the City" or "The Sopranos" between movies is still advertising. So is the constant stream of promotions for HBO2, HBO3, etc.
Same deal with the movies. Of course there are promotions for snacks and previews for upcoming movies... all advertising. And in the past year or so, now you've got full-on commercials ("let alone dotcom and Mountain Dew ads").
I hate to "ruin" the sarcastic post, but with a handful of people already responding and/or moderating otherwise, its killing me...
Understood. In fact, I think that's supposed to be the case (a 1-to-1 correspondence). Which is why I thought it valuable enough to post.
As an aside, I can't really argue with your slam of Tom's quality. I used to be very impressed with the site... however to echo a sentiment being expressed several times in this overall discussion, the site has really gone downhill IMO.
Not sure if you caught it, but there are two (1, 2) pages after the page listed as the conclusion. The "real" final page does present a little better conclusion in terms of "last-page material".
This review certainly seems to be setup only to judge if the LCD is ready to replace the CRT, and the conclusion certainly supports that deduction.
The best site to track this incident IMO (incidents.org) now has a pretty good picture of what's going on from a technical perspective.
A short summary:
The Nimda worm is now known to propogate four ways:
(1) An IIS vulnerability propagation mechanism where the worm attempts to exploit a large number of IIS vulnerabilities to gain control of a victim IIS server. Once in control, the worm uses tftp to fetch its code in a file called Admin.dll from the attacking server.
(2) Email propogation. The worm harvests email addresses from the address book and potentially the web browser history and sends itself to all addresses as an attachment called readme.exe. These executables are automatically executed if the receipient who opens (or previews) the email is running Internet Explorer 5 or 6. Note that the worm may spoof the source address on the emails.
(3) When a web server is infected, the worm replaces all web pages on the server with a binary encoded as a wav file, which can infect each client that connects to the server. The wav file is called readme.eml. Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 and higher will automatically execute the malicious file.
(4) The worm is network aware and propagates via open shares. It will propagate to shares that are accessible to username guest with no password.
- YASP (Yet Another Security Professional) who is fighting this pretty heavily at work - nothing here infected, of course, but the traffic itself is threatening to become a pretty nice distributed DOS - our Internet Router (a decently-hefty CSCO 6500-series) is sitting at ~60% processor utilization.
It sounds to me like we basically agree here. You might want to re-read the whole thread - I just did, it provided a little clarity into the overall discussion.
It's not just a matter of what laws are passed - it's how they are enforced.
Which is exactly what I was saying. The laws themself do nothing. It's enforcement that matters. And I argue that with the current airport security infrastructure, it will be essentially impossible to effectively secure (or enforce these news laws).
It's nothing of the sort.
I still disagree;)
You can argue that people with pens, martial arts skills, etc. could do the same thing, but how many times have they?
How relevant is this? Prior to Tuesday, you could use this same logic to say that there was no need to protect against people carrying knives onboard, since no one had every used knives to hijack a US flight and crash it into a builiding.
It's important to remember that this was the first really major act of terrorism on US soil. This was the first time a plane was hijacked in the US for the last 10 years or so. This very incident was an exception to the norm. You can't say "ban knives, this will not happen again". That's about as effective as saying "ban terrorism, that way this doesn't happen again". Remember the facts - Bin Laudin openly declared war on the United States ~5 years ago. This is most likely an act of war by a group/country which is openly at war with the US. The big difference - we've never really been attacked in the continental US, and we've never really acknowledged Bin Laudin's declaration of war.
Another important premise to remember is that an intelligent attacker (or a terrorist) will arm themselves to the greatest degree possible, given all appropriate facts. These men came carrying knives, it seems, because they were assured they could sneak them on board, and they were sufficient for their purposes. Previously, most terrorists have used guns. You can assume that increased security controls around firearms have made that method a little more difficult (not impossible, just a higher risk of detection). If you outlaw knives, then someone will attack with a corkscrew, or a pen, or a club, or a stick.
And no matter how many hand combat skills they have, if they can't get into the cockpit, then they won't get control of the flight.
Certainly true. But what you are suggesting here is either a change in airline policy (the pilots need to know not to hand over control of a plane) or a shift in the physical layout of the plane (the inability for the doors to the cabin to be opened in flight, etc). But these issues were not in your first post which I responded to. I feel both are good ideas and will likely be appropriate responses.
I'm not arguing we do ONE thing - many things have to be done. Banning knives is one of them.
I'm just arguing that banning knives is like trying to control guns - someone will always be able to come up with a weapon to do harm. If you want to make real progress, you have to attack the root cause. US foreign policy, our stance on terrorism and terrorist states, etc.
So, you don't like the idea of controlling what people can carry onto flights? You don't think the government should make such rules? Try this argument - those airplanes are private property. Passengers are guests - if the owner of the property wants to ban knives from the airplane, he has every right to, doesn't he?
You must have missed the entire last paragraph of my previous comment, saying "My base argument here is that flying (like driving) is a privledge and not a right." If the airlines (or the FAA, the government regulators) want to ban knives, or pencils, or even conscious passengers, that is their perogitive. My personal beliefs are so far to the right that I border on anarchism (the political philosoply, not the ridiculous "anarchy" movement". But what I was trying to say above is that I think it would be more effective for passengers to carry weapons on an airplane. Exactly the same as I maintain that the NY Subway shooting of a few years ago could have been easily stopped with minimal loss of life if you had one or two people on board carrying concealed weapons.
You can never legislate behavior in criminals. Certain people are going to act in discord with the laws, regardless of the supposed punishment. Most people simply think that they are invincible, that they are too smart, that they will not be caught. The only way IMO to make a real difference is a two-prong paradigm shift: drastically change enforcement (active enforcement, stop fighting the "stupid stuff", increase the effort and thus the chance of being caught, increase the punishment, etc) as well as pro-active prevention (active air marshalls on every flight, sealed cockpits which cannot be opened into the cabin, possibly increasing the ability of the passengers or the flight crew to defend themselves, etc).
My suggestion for appriate military response? Bomb Afganastan, Packastan, and Iraq (and any other known terrorist nations, whether or not they were connected to this specific attack) into dust. Level their government sectors. Accept a certain (high) level of civilian casualties. Make it known world-wide that we will not tolerate any country who wishes to use a terrorist method against the United States. We will pro-actively defend ourselves against those nations who claim to be actively at war with us. At the same time, shift our public policy to be US-centric instead of world-centric. Get out of the middle east, get out of Israel. Let NATO assume the role of world cop, not the US. (We'll still fall in that role through our role in NATO, but we will not be the "bastion of democracy for the world").
That's prong I of my "two-prong paradigm shift" as detailed above. For prong II, just a few suggestions (not an all-inclusive list):
go to at least two well-armed (knives, air tasers, hand tasers, clubs, kevlar armor, etc) air marshalls on every flight
drastically increase security checkpoints and their enforcment. Go to armed officers (police or private) at every gate
increase the skill level (training, higher pay, etc) of the security guards and all airline personell
arm all flight attendents (a hand taser or etc), provide them with basic self-defense training
provide citizens of the US the ability to carry concealed weapons (on the street, not necessarily on planes) given that they can pass stringent testing (including physical, psychological, and weapon/defense aptitude testing). Make the licensing fee several thousand dollars to pay for the testing. Require renewall every calendar year.
possibly provide provide citizens of the US the ability to carry concealed weapons even on planes given an even stricter certification process. Essentially, use the citizens to defend the country, not just the military or the police. This is one of the best ways to avoid becoming a "police state".
Re:And here comes Carnivore...
on
More WTC News
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Do you really think that if it was "illegal" for the terrorists to carry any knife on board the airplane, that FAA rule would have stopped this tragedy?
Get real...
Take your logic a step further - Congress needs to immediately pass legislation banning the hijacking of airplanes, and further banning the crashing of airplanes into buildings. Because if those specific laws were in existance, this tragedy could have been prevented. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Ban anything remotely resembling a weapon from going on an airplane. You still have two large problems:
1) the almost complete inability to detect these "banned" weapons given today's lax airport security and low-skilled minimum-wage "security" guards
2) the ability to kill without a "banned" weapon - a pen can easily be used to kill someone, bare hands, fingernails, whatever extreme you wish to take the example. The "prison" examples as frequently sited - prison bans all weapons, prisoners still manage to kill each other despite the bans.
The basic message of Omnifarious' posting is correct. Your statement is similar to another former slashdot arguement, that Columbine supposedly could have been prevented by tougher laws on carrying guns into a school. Right...
The people who put this attack into motion did not care about airline regulations, or laws of any kind. This was an act of terror, an act of war. Tougher rules at airports without increased levels of inforcement and inspection will accomplish NOTHING. The only response the people who committed this act were/are possibly considering is military response.
We have two options: respond militarily, or respond socially (change our public and political policies). I personally favor both - a swift (and devastating) military response (once a proper target is identified) and an attempt to shift our public and political policies in regards to terrorism, terrorist states, and etc.
Certainly, we can and should increase airport security. My base argument here is that flying (like driving) is a privledge and not a right. If I understand that I have to be knocked unconscious in order to fly on a public commercial airline, then I either choose to fly (and be drugged) or not. Likewise, more reasonable talks of banning all sorts of weapons on airplanes does not infringe upon my rights, only upon a privledge. Whether or not I feel it is intelligent to start taking weapons out of the hands of innocent people over this is a whole different matter (argument: ~20 civilians with large knifes on each plane would have almost certainly been able to prevent this sort of hijacking, had they tried to do so).
Progressive taxation, property taxes, and inheritance taxes were all designed to by the U.S. founding fathers to prevent wealth from accumulting in the hands of a few families (as was common in Europe at the time).
Hey, stoopid. Taxation on income was enacted in 1913 by the 16th amendment. Little history lesson:
It took decades of organizing and a Constitutional Amendment (the Sixteenth Amendment, enacted in 1913) to finally get a tax on income in this country. The workers and farmers who fought for the tax saw it as a good way to take back some of the robber barons' ill-gotten gains. And it was a great deal for working people: The first income tax was paid only by the richest 5 percent of households.
You mention historical illiteracy. Sounds like you got smacked upside the head with a great big dose of it.
The founding fathers opinions on taxation was vastly different even among each other. And guess what, genius, the founding fathers were the wealthy few who were living the life of "privilage" that you mention. This country was founded by those that it currently vilifies.
People like you keep people like me very paranoid. Please, do your country a favor, and do not vote. If you can deport yourself to Mexico, that would be even better:) Do yourself a favor: start watching the O'Reilly Factor every single night, for at least a week straight. If you feel your eyes (or your brain) hurting, ala the Matrix, it's because you've never used them before;P
FWIW, Article I, setion 8 of the constitution covered taxes. Here it is in it's entirety. Read up, genius:
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officer, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, an the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; - And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
and just for completeness:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
which threw open the door to the ridiculously oppressive mess we've got today...
Progressive taxation is outright class warfare against the upper 25% of this country. And guess what, I'd bet that at least 75% of US readers here are either in that upper 25% right now, or will be within the next four years.
Glad to see (as of time of this post) that at least one moderator has his/her head on straight an has hit you with an overrated. Because your ideas are flat out wrong.
Progressive taxation is the most ridiculous of the vast array of ridiculous mistakes by the US govenment, which flies in the face of the intent of the founders of this country. No taxation without representation. Balance that out: no unequal taxation without the corresponding unequal represntation. If I have to pay a disproportionate amount of tax, I should receive a corresponding disproportionate voice in government. You want to base the number of votes (or weight the votes) based on the taxes that we have? Fine. Otherwise, progressive taxation is flat out oppressive.
Let's do some basic (simplified) math here:
Let's say I make $120,000 a year. I pay 40% of that in taxes a year. You make $60,000, and pay 20% in taxes a year.
You are right, The wealthy have the most to loose, and it can be argued the most to gain from the benefits of taxation (which is total BS, but i'll give you that point b/c it won't change the logical outcome).
I make twice as much as you. I should pay twice as much in taxes as you do. But guess what? Under a progressive tax system I pay more than twice. In the example above, I'm paying four times as much as you are in taxes, while only making twice as much? How in the world can you reason that as fair? Do you really think that I get progressively more benefit than you from my tax dollars? I can understand that I get proportionally more benefit from my increased income, but if you think i get exponentially more (as in proportional taxation), then..... well, I'll try to be civil, and just ask you to not Vote for the good of the country.
Your question "If things are so bad, then why don't more high-earners flee to tax havens abroad?" is very naieve. First, many people do hide money through various ways, either in tax shelters here or abroad. But don't forget, most of us in the upper 10% are here becasue that's where the IT jobs are. You think I could be making $120,000 only two years out of college in any other country? No. But if you did the math, I could probably take home as much by moving elsewhere, taking a lowpaying job, and escaping this unjust taxation system. Which is why I will be making specific plans to leave the country if Gore is elected. If we're going to live in a Socialist country, I'd rather move to a country who's been doing socialism for a while and realizes that it's not all it's cracked up to be (like, oh, New Zealand).
Here's hoping for another Boston Tea Party, sometime in the near future. So far this year I've paid $43,000 in taxes. I am by no means what I would consider rich. If that's not oppression, I don't know what is.
This just means the same thing that the regular US elections all show: that only a minority of the people in the US will take the time to vote in the presidential election:)
First, read Kurzweil's book "the Age of Spiritual Machines". He asserts that technology is an inevitable part of evolution, and I agree with him. I'm not going to go into that here, primarily because I couldn't do his fantastic book justice.
I've got to take some issues with most of your "rare events":
exisitance of the moon: OK, I'll give you that one.
death of the dinosaurs: its tough to say that dinosaurs would have prevented human evolution. Sure, the global impact of a huge asteriod probably kicked evolution in the ass, so to speak, but you can't say that humans and ergo technology couldn't have evolved with dinosaurs in place.
The "mutated intelligent apes" theory, and the "intelligent dolphins" stuff: first, don't assume intelligence is a random mutation. I (and most people IMHO) would maket the assertion that intelligence is a natural selection trait, encouraged by the survival of the smartest. Any learning system will become "more intelligent" as it continues to evolve. Second, who's to say that dolphins wouldn't have invented radio waves, the transistor, and eventually SlashDot too? Your assertions of "what if dolphins were smart instead of apes?" is no different from my statement about dolphins eventaully inventing SlashDot... pure speculation. Kurzweil asserts that techonology (and/or intelligence) is the main driving evolutionary force, and I agree. If we've got intelligent dolphins, then some dolphin is going to invent the digital computer.
Black death: again, I'd argue that this might have caused an evolutionary kick in the ass, speeding things up, but the evolutionary destiny of technology would still have proceded with or without this event. Another of Kurzweil's theories: the speed of the evolution of a system increases exponentially in relation to the system's complexity. Applied here, once the exponential curve of technology growth started, everything else was uphill. Sure, we might not be where we are today had the black death not occured, but I don't think you can say we'd be jousting on horses and fighting with swords still;)
the "one intelligent person influences history" stuff: that I have to say is flat out BS. To quote Tyler Durden, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake." The course of human inventions have always existed in parallel. Turing didn't invent the digital computer alone or in a vacuum. Several other people invented pretty much the same damn thing at the same time, apart from each other. It's a huge oversimplified generalization to say that if Gutenburg hadn't invented the printing press that we wouldn't have one. I'd assert that someone else would have invented the printing press, and maybe not too long after Gutenburg. I don't buy the "Einstein was one of a kind" theory... if not him, then someone else.
long period with no catastrophes: you mention the black death above, but then say there have been no catastrophes? The difference between us and the dinosaurs is that we have evolved and adapted to the catastrophes which have occured. we've beaten them back down, and evolution has proceded. Also, even if we had lost a battle, as long as life exists, intelligence and technology will continue to evolve towards dominance.
Lastly, you say:
"We may well be the only technological civilization in the galaxy - or even the universe. How sad, how terribly sad."
Even if you are trying to say that the conditions needed to produce life and later evolve into technology are super-rare, the near-infinite dimensions of space have to mean there is someone else out there. There's simply too much space for it all to be wasted on nothingness.
Anyways, do yourself a favor and pick up the book. Hopefully it will change your bleak outlook on life and the universe.
Yes, the original certificate has to have been generated by a version of PGP which places the ADK packets outside of the cryptographic hash.
Yes, there can be more than one ADK packet, and there can be a valid ADK packet already onboard. In both cases, (if you created the certificate with a vulnerable version of PGP) you are still vunerable.
Lines 1-4 are the key certificate information... public key, username, email address, etc. Line 5 is the cryptographic hash (think digital signature) that says "hey, lines 1-4 contain exactly the following information". In vulnerable versions of PGP, line 6 is the ADK. When someone pulls down your public key (lines 1-6) their copy of PGP checks with line 5 to make sure that the entire public key is good and untampered. Since the ADK stuff can be added in line 6 without voiding the digital signature, the certificate checks out, even if someone has added an ADK to your certificate.
Bad stuff... big brother (or your boss, or etc) can now read all the data encrypted to you from others who used this tainted public key.
Read the #98 post a little farther down for a better (read: more detailed) summary. It DOES matter what version of PGP you create the key with, and thus your details of the exploit are a little off...
In short, the exploit sequence is as follows:
Alice creates a PGP certificate. This is composed of her public key plus a bunch of other "packets" containing info like UserID, etc. One of these packets is essentially a checksum, containing a signature of the previous packets. In NAI PGP version 5, the ADK packet is included OUTSIDE of the checksum (so you can attach an ADK packet without affecting the checksum (and thus without generating an error message that the key has been tampered with). Alice then uploads her PGP public certificate to the pgp root server.
Carol wants to read any messages to Alice, so she goes out, pulls down Alice's certificate, and adds an ADK packet featuring her own public key. Then Carol uploads the new copy of Alice's key. Because the ADK packet is not included in (not checked by) the signed hash packet, this addition is not noticed as making the certificate invalid.
Now Bob decides he wants to send an encrypted message to Alice, so he pulls her public key from the pgp root server. He gets the latest copy, which is the version with Carol's ADK packet. So when Bob encrypts a message to Alice, it's just like he selected to encrypt the message to Alice and to Carol. So Carol can then intercept the email and decrypt it using her own private key.
Even if they sold the CDs at a buck a piece, I would not buy the same dollar-amount as I do now. There are not 30 albums per month that I would want to acquire.
Maybe you wouldn't, but I would. I can think of a lot of older music I'd own if it were much cheaper. I can't say I'd buy 30 a month @ $1, but I bet I'd be close:)
I'd also argue that the $1 a CD wouldn't be reasonable. But if CDs were $8 each, wouldn't you be more likely to spend approx. $30 a month then? More likely to find four CDs a month that you want to have:)
One of my best friends is the manager of a local AMC Theater. The theater gets zero revenue from the price of the tickets. The theaters get 100% of their revenue from concession sales. That's the major reason for the high price in concessions, b/c the theaters raise them to make higher profit margins from their only source of revenue. AFAIK and as far as he knows (AFAHK I guess) all theaters in the country operate this way.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Your statement is true (and I even agree with it), except for:
And it's all from tax money and from raising your stamp rates
The Post Office doesn't get any tax money. It's entirely self-funded. But yes, it should be run as any other business and shouldn't be protected by the government IMHO. Laissez-faire!
I personally feel motivated to comment that the (current) seven people who feel this is "Funny" should never again receive moderation points. I remember the "good old days", when +5 was a damn funny or insightful comment that always made me think or laugh. As opposed to this trolling drivel, which only generates the response "man I miss the old slashdot".
I can't wait for this one to show up in meta-mod. Karma be damned.
--------- Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
Grand total? FIFTY-SEVEN hours and fifteen minutes of work, in a single week. And that's not counting the at-home work I'll be putting in on some presentations this weekend.
Final point, even though this has been much discussed and pretty much agreed upon: 37 HOURS IS IN NO WAY AVERAGE, FOR THE IT INDUSTRY!!! Why? Because for those of you who say "yes I work 37 hours a week", there are lots like me who say "50-60 hours per week". And there aren't enough (if any) saying 15-25 to make the average come out to the mid/upper 30's.
--------- Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
>That's definitely a joke if you work with > computers (or any kind of technology).
Amen, brother. My official policy through my employer is that we work a total of 80-hours over a two-week pay period. Upon the discression of the employee, you are allowed to complete those 80-hours in practically any manner you see fit (flex-time, work 9 hours a day then take the second Friday off, etc).
But that's just official policy. In practice, take the current work week for example:
Monday: 7:00am - 8:30pm, 30-minute lunch: 13 Hours. Tuesday: 7:30am - 5:30pm, 30-minute lunch: 9 1/2 Hours. Wednesday: 7:00am - 7:15pm (heading home right after I post this comment), 1-hour lunch: 11 1/4 Hours.
That's almost 35 hours in a three day period... I beat the gov't expectation by Wednesday.;) And unfortuantely these type weeks are more the norm than the exception.
And don't get me started about the 24-7 on-call period, the weekend wakeup calls at 3am to tell me something is broken, etc etc...
--------- Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
I am posting this from a public terminal at the RSA2000 Conference, where Ian Goldberg (Zero Knowledge's chief scientist) is scheduled to talk tomorrow.
I've got his session scheduled... I plan to grab some of the "best" questions from this thread on Slashdot and corner Ian afterwards and see what he's got to say. I'll post the results of my quest here tomorrow after the session, if anyone is interested.
--------- Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
Slashdot Mirror
You can now:
Michelob Ultra.
"Michelob Ultra is a smooth, refreshing lager with 96 calories, 4.1 percent alcohol by volume and 2.9 grams of carbohydrates per 12-oz. serving."
And personal note: I've been on Atkins for two months (since the Atkins NYT Article previously discussed here) and have lost 25 pounds as of today. No ill effects. And for the first diet in my life, I haven't felt "starved" or "deprived" once.
http://downloads.ehowa.com/~dancewhiteboy.wmv
Perhaps the best sarcastic comment I've seen on this site in a long time. Note to those moderating and/or responding: repair your sarcasm detectors ("oh, a sarcasm detector... real usefull!") and moderate as "Funny" or etc.
For those not "getting it"...
I'm not sure what planet you're on, but cable TV contains a significant amount of advertising.
So-called "basic cable" is rife with advertising. MTV, TBS, TNT, CNN, etc, all have just as much advertising content as the regular broadcast stations.
On to the "premium channels". Movie channels (HBO, Skinimax, etc) certainly contain almost zero outside advertising, but usually contain significant "in-band" advertising for the channel itself (and usually its affiliates). HBO promoting its own shows like "Sex in the City" or "The Sopranos" between movies is still advertising. So is the constant stream of promotions for HBO2, HBO3, etc.
Same deal with the movies. Of course there are promotions for snacks and previews for upcoming movies... all advertising. And in the past year or so, now you've got full-on commercials ("let alone dotcom and Mountain Dew ads").
I hate to "ruin" the sarcastic post, but with a handful of people already responding and/or moderating otherwise, its killing me...
Understood. In fact, I think that's supposed to be the case (a 1-to-1 correspondence). Which is why I thought it valuable enough to post.
As an aside, I can't really argue with your slam of Tom's quality. I used to be very impressed with the site... however to echo a sentiment being expressed several times in this overall discussion, the site has really gone downhill IMO.
Not sure if you caught it, but there are two (1, 2) pages after the page listed as the conclusion. The "real" final page does present a little better conclusion in terms of "last-page material".
This review certainly seems to be setup only to judge if the LCD is ready to replace the CRT, and the conclusion certainly supports that deduction.
The best site to track this incident IMO (incidents.org) now has a pretty good picture of what's going on from a technical perspective.
A short summary:
The Nimda worm is now known to propogate four ways:
(1) An IIS vulnerability propagation mechanism where the worm attempts to exploit a large number of IIS vulnerabilities to gain control of a victim IIS server. Once in control, the worm uses tftp to fetch its code in a file called Admin.dll from the attacking server.
(2) Email propogation. The worm harvests email addresses from the address book and potentially the web browser history and sends itself to all addresses as an attachment called readme.exe. These executables are automatically executed if the receipient who opens (or previews) the email is running Internet Explorer 5 or 6. Note that the worm may spoof the source address on the emails.
(3) When a web server is infected, the worm replaces all web pages on the server with a binary encoded as a wav file, which can infect each client that connects to the server. The wav file is called readme.eml. Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 and higher will automatically execute the malicious file.
(4) The worm is network aware and propagates via open shares. It will propagate to shares that are accessible to username guest with no password.
See: www.incidents.org/react/nimda.php for the full details.
- YASP (Yet Another Security Professional) who is fighting this pretty heavily at work - nothing here infected, of course, but the traffic itself is threatening to become a pretty nice distributed DOS - our Internet Router (a decently-hefty CSCO 6500-series) is sitting at ~60% processor utilization.
It's not just a matter of what laws are passed - it's how they are enforced.
Which is exactly what I was saying. The laws themself do nothing. It's enforcement that matters. And I argue that with the current airport security infrastructure, it will be essentially impossible to effectively secure (or enforce these news laws).
It's nothing of the sort.
I still disagree
You can argue that people with pens, martial arts skills, etc. could do the same thing, but how many times have they?
How relevant is this? Prior to Tuesday, you could use this same logic to say that there was no need to protect against people carrying knives onboard, since no one had every used knives to hijack a US flight and crash it into a builiding.
It's important to remember that this was the first really major act of terrorism on US soil. This was the first time a plane was hijacked in the US for the last 10 years or so. This very incident was an exception to the norm. You can't say "ban knives, this will not happen again". That's about as effective as saying "ban terrorism, that way this doesn't happen again". Remember the facts - Bin Laudin openly declared war on the United States ~5 years ago. This is most likely an act of war by a group/country which is openly at war with the US. The big difference - we've never really been attacked in the continental US, and we've never really acknowledged Bin Laudin's declaration of war.
Another important premise to remember is that an intelligent attacker (or a terrorist) will arm themselves to the greatest degree possible, given all appropriate facts. These men came carrying knives, it seems, because they were assured they could sneak them on board, and they were sufficient for their purposes. Previously, most terrorists have used guns. You can assume that increased security controls around firearms have made that method a little more difficult (not impossible, just a higher risk of detection). If you outlaw knives, then someone will attack with a corkscrew, or a pen, or a club, or a stick.
And no matter how many hand combat skills they have, if they can't get into the cockpit, then they won't get control of the flight.
Certainly true. But what you are suggesting here is either a change in airline policy (the pilots need to know not to hand over control of a plane) or a shift in the physical layout of the plane (the inability for the doors to the cabin to be opened in flight, etc). But these issues were not in your first post which I responded to. I feel both are good ideas and will likely be appropriate responses.
I'm not arguing we do ONE thing - many things have to be done. Banning knives is one of them.
I'm just arguing that banning knives is like trying to control guns - someone will always be able to come up with a weapon to do harm. If you want to make real progress, you have to attack the root cause. US foreign policy, our stance on terrorism and terrorist states, etc.
So, you don't like the idea of controlling what people can carry onto flights? You don't think the government should make such rules? Try this argument - those airplanes are private property. Passengers are guests - if the owner of the property wants to ban knives from the airplane, he has every right to, doesn't he?
You must have missed the entire last paragraph of my previous comment, saying "My base argument here is that flying (like driving) is a privledge and not a right." If the airlines (or the FAA, the government regulators) want to ban knives, or pencils, or even conscious passengers, that is their perogitive. My personal beliefs are so far to the right that I border on anarchism (the political philosoply, not the ridiculous "anarchy" movement". But what I was trying to say above is that I think it would be more effective for passengers to carry weapons on an airplane. Exactly the same as I maintain that the NY Subway shooting of a few years ago could have been easily stopped with minimal loss of life if you had one or two people on board carrying concealed weapons.
You can never legislate behavior in criminals. Certain people are going to act in discord with the laws, regardless of the supposed punishment. Most people simply think that they are invincible, that they are too smart, that they will not be caught. The only way IMO to make a real difference is a two-prong paradigm shift: drastically change enforcement (active enforcement, stop fighting the "stupid stuff", increase the effort and thus the chance of being caught, increase the punishment, etc) as well as pro-active prevention (active air marshalls on every flight, sealed cockpits which cannot be opened into the cabin, possibly increasing the ability of the passengers or the flight crew to defend themselves, etc).
My suggestion for appriate military response? Bomb Afganastan, Packastan, and Iraq (and any other known terrorist nations, whether or not they were connected to this specific attack) into dust. Level their government sectors. Accept a certain (high) level of civilian casualties. Make it known world-wide that we will not tolerate any country who wishes to use a terrorist method against the United States. We will pro-actively defend ourselves against those nations who claim to be actively at war with us. At the same time, shift our public policy to be US-centric instead of world-centric. Get out of the middle east, get out of Israel. Let NATO assume the role of world cop, not the US. (We'll still fall in that role through our role in NATO, but we will not be the "bastion of democracy for the world").
That's prong I of my "two-prong paradigm shift" as detailed above. For prong II, just a few suggestions (not an all-inclusive list):
go to at least two well-armed (knives, air tasers, hand tasers, clubs, kevlar armor, etc) air marshalls on every flight
drastically increase security checkpoints and their enforcment. Go to armed officers (police or private) at every gate
increase the skill level (training, higher pay, etc) of the security guards and all airline personell
arm all flight attendents (a hand taser or etc), provide them with basic self-defense training
provide citizens of the US the ability to carry concealed weapons (on the street, not necessarily on planes) given that they can pass stringent testing (including physical, psychological, and weapon/defense aptitude testing). Make the licensing fee several thousand dollars to pay for the testing. Require renewall every calendar year.
possibly provide provide citizens of the US the ability to carry concealed weapons even on planes given an even stricter certification process. Essentially, use the citizens to defend the country, not just the military or the police. This is one of the best ways to avoid becoming a "police state".
Do you really think that if it was "illegal" for the terrorists to carry any knife on board the airplane, that FAA rule would have stopped this tragedy?
Get real...
Take your logic a step further - Congress needs to immediately pass legislation banning the hijacking of airplanes, and further banning the crashing of airplanes into buildings. Because if those specific laws were in existance, this tragedy could have been prevented. Yeah, that's the ticket...
Ban anything remotely resembling a weapon from going on an airplane. You still have two large problems:
1) the almost complete inability to detect these "banned" weapons given today's lax airport security and low-skilled minimum-wage "security" guards
2) the ability to kill without a "banned" weapon - a pen can easily be used to kill someone, bare hands, fingernails, whatever extreme you wish to take the example. The "prison" examples as frequently sited - prison bans all weapons, prisoners still manage to kill each other despite the bans.
The basic message of Omnifarious' posting is correct. Your statement is similar to another former slashdot arguement, that Columbine supposedly could have been prevented by tougher laws on carrying guns into a school. Right...
The people who put this attack into motion did not care about airline regulations, or laws of any kind. This was an act of terror, an act of war. Tougher rules at airports without increased levels of inforcement and inspection will accomplish NOTHING. The only response the people who committed this act were/are possibly considering is military response.
We have two options: respond militarily, or respond socially (change our public and political policies). I personally favor both - a swift (and devastating) military response (once a proper target is identified) and an attempt to shift our public and political policies in regards to terrorism, terrorist states, and etc.
Certainly, we can and should increase airport security. My base argument here is that flying (like driving) is a privledge and not a right. If I understand that I have to be knocked unconscious in order to fly on a public commercial airline, then I either choose to fly (and be drugged) or not. Likewise, more reasonable talks of banning all sorts of weapons on airplanes does not infringe upon my rights, only upon a privledge. Whether or not I feel it is intelligent to start taking weapons out of the hands of innocent people over this is a whole different matter (argument: ~20 civilians with large knifes on each plane would have almost certainly been able to prevent this sort of hijacking, had they tried to do so).
It took decades of organizing and a Constitutional Amendment (the Sixteenth Amendment, enacted in 1913) to finally get a tax on income in this country. The workers and farmers who fought for the tax saw it as a good way to take back some of the robber barons' ill-gotten gains. And it was a great deal for working people: The first income tax was paid only by the richest 5 percent of households.
You mention historical illiteracy. Sounds like you got smacked upside the head with a great big dose of it.
The founding fathers opinions on taxation was vastly different even among each other. And guess what, genius, the founding fathers were the wealthy few who were living the life of "privilage" that you mention. This country was founded by those that it currently vilifies.
People like you keep people like me very paranoid. Please, do your country a favor, and do not vote. If you can deport yourself to Mexico, that would be even better
FWIW, Article I, setion 8 of the constitution covered taxes. Here it is in it's entirety. Read up, genius:
Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officer, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, an the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings; - And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
and just for completeness:
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
which threw open the door to the ridiculously oppressive mess we've got today...
---------
Progressive taxation is outright class warfare against the upper 25% of this country. And guess what, I'd bet that at least 75% of US readers here are either in that upper 25% right now, or will be within the next four years.
Glad to see (as of time of this post) that at least one moderator has his/her head on straight an has hit you with an overrated. Because your ideas are flat out wrong.
Progressive taxation is the most ridiculous of the vast array of ridiculous mistakes by the US govenment, which flies in the face of the intent of the founders of this country. No taxation without representation. Balance that out: no unequal taxation without the corresponding unequal represntation. If I have to pay a disproportionate amount of tax, I should receive a corresponding disproportionate voice in government. You want to base the number of votes (or weight the votes) based on the taxes that we have? Fine. Otherwise, progressive taxation is flat out oppressive.
Let's do some basic (simplified) math here:
Let's say I make $120,000 a year. I pay 40% of that in taxes a year. You make $60,000, and pay 20% in taxes a year.
You are right, The wealthy have the most to loose, and it can be argued the most to gain from the benefits of taxation (which is total BS, but i'll give you that point b/c it won't change the logical outcome).
I make twice as much as you. I should pay twice as much in taxes as you do. But guess what? Under a progressive tax system I pay more than twice. In the example above, I'm paying four times as much as you are in taxes, while only making twice as much? How in the world can you reason that as fair? Do you really think that I get progressively more benefit than you from my tax dollars? I can understand that I get proportionally more benefit from my increased income, but if you think i get exponentially more (as in proportional taxation), then..... well, I'll try to be civil, and just ask you to not Vote for the good of the country.
Your question "If things are so bad, then why don't more high-earners flee to tax havens abroad?" is very naieve. First, many people do hide money through various ways, either in tax shelters here or abroad. But don't forget, most of us in the upper 10% are here becasue that's where the IT jobs are. You think I could be making $120,000 only two years out of college in any other country? No. But if you did the math, I could probably take home as much by moving elsewhere, taking a lowpaying job, and escaping this unjust taxation system. Which is why I will be making specific plans to leave the country if Gore is elected. If we're going to live in a Socialist country, I'd rather move to a country who's been doing socialism for a while and realizes that it's not all it's cracked up to be (like, oh, New Zealand).
Here's hoping for another Boston Tea Party, sometime in the near future. So far this year I've paid $43,000 in taxes. I am by no means what I would consider rich. If that's not oppression, I don't know what is.
---------
This just means the same thing that the regular US elections all show: that only a minority of the people in the US will take the time to vote in the presidential election :)
---------
I've got to take some issues with most of your "rare events":
exisitance of the moon: OK, I'll give you that one.
death of the dinosaurs: its tough to say that dinosaurs would have prevented human evolution. Sure, the global impact of a huge asteriod probably kicked evolution in the ass, so to speak, but you can't say that humans and ergo technology couldn't have evolved with dinosaurs in place.
The "mutated intelligent apes" theory, and the "intelligent dolphins" stuff: first, don't assume intelligence is a random mutation. I (and most people IMHO) would maket the assertion that intelligence is a natural selection trait, encouraged by the survival of the smartest. Any learning system will become "more intelligent" as it continues to evolve. Second, who's to say that dolphins wouldn't have invented radio waves, the transistor, and eventually SlashDot too? Your assertions of "what if dolphins were smart instead of apes?" is no different from my statement about dolphins eventaully inventing SlashDot... pure speculation. Kurzweil asserts that techonology (and/or intelligence) is the main driving evolutionary force, and I agree. If we've got intelligent dolphins, then some dolphin is going to invent the digital computer.
Black death: again, I'd argue that this might have caused an evolutionary kick in the ass, speeding things up, but the evolutionary destiny of technology would still have proceded with or without this event. Another of Kurzweil's theories: the speed of the evolution of a system increases exponentially in relation to the system's complexity. Applied here, once the exponential curve of technology growth started, everything else was uphill. Sure, we might not be where we are today had the black death not occured, but I don't think you can say we'd be jousting on horses and fighting with swords still ;)
the "one intelligent person influences history" stuff: that I have to say is flat out BS. To quote Tyler Durden, "You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake." The course of human inventions have always existed in parallel. Turing didn't invent the digital computer alone or in a vacuum. Several other people invented pretty much the same damn thing at the same time, apart from each other. It's a huge oversimplified generalization to say that if Gutenburg hadn't invented the printing press that we wouldn't have one. I'd assert that someone else would have invented the printing press, and maybe not too long after Gutenburg. I don't buy the "Einstein was one of a kind" theory... if not him, then someone else.
long period with no catastrophes: you mention the black death above, but then say there have been no catastrophes? The difference between us and the dinosaurs is that we have evolved and adapted to the catastrophes which have occured. we've beaten them back down, and evolution has proceded. Also, even if we had lost a battle, as long as life exists, intelligence and technology will continue to evolve towards dominance.
Even if you are trying to say that the conditions needed to produce life and later evolve into technology are super-rare, the near-infinite dimensions of space have to mean there is someone else out there. There's simply too much space for it all to be wasted on nothingness.Lastly, you say:
Anyways, do yourself a favor and pick up the book. Hopefully it will change your bleak outlook on life and the universe.
---------
Yes, the original certificate has to have been generated by a version of PGP which places the ADK packets outside of the cryptographic hash.
Yes, there can be more than one ADK packet, and there can be a valid ADK packet already onboard. In both cases, (if you created the certificate with a vulnerable version of PGP) you are still vunerable.
Think of it like this:
[----------1----------]
[----------2----------]
[----------3----------]
[----------4----------]
[^^^^^xx-5-xx^^^^^]
{----------6----------}
Lines 1-4 are the key certificate information... public key, username, email address, etc. Line 5 is the cryptographic hash (think digital signature) that says "hey, lines 1-4 contain exactly the following information". In vulnerable versions of PGP, line 6 is the ADK. When someone pulls down your public key (lines 1-6) their copy of PGP checks with line 5 to make sure that the entire public key is good and untampered. Since the ADK stuff can be added in line 6 without voiding the digital signature, the certificate checks out, even if someone has added an ADK to your certificate.
Bad stuff... big brother (or your boss, or etc) can now read all the data encrypted to you from others who used this tainted public key.
---------
Read the #98 post a little farther down for a better (read: more detailed) summary. It DOES matter what version of PGP you create the key with, and thus your details of the exploit are a little off...
In short, the exploit sequence is as follows:
Alice creates a PGP certificate. This is composed of her public key plus a bunch of other "packets" containing info like UserID, etc. One of these packets is essentially a checksum, containing a signature of the previous packets. In NAI PGP version 5, the ADK packet is included OUTSIDE of the checksum (so you can attach an ADK packet without affecting the checksum (and thus without generating an error message that the key has been tampered with). Alice then uploads her PGP public certificate to the pgp root server.
Carol wants to read any messages to Alice, so she goes out, pulls down Alice's certificate, and adds an ADK packet featuring her own public key. Then Carol uploads the new copy of Alice's key. Because the ADK packet is not included in (not checked by) the signed hash packet, this addition is not noticed as making the certificate invalid.
Now Bob decides he wants to send an encrypted message to Alice, so he pulls her public key from the pgp root server. He gets the latest copy, which is the version with Carol's ADK packet. So when Bob encrypts a message to Alice, it's just like he selected to encrypt the message to Alice and to Carol. So Carol can then intercept the email and decrypt it using her own private key.
---------
I'd also argue that the $1 a CD wouldn't be reasonable. But if CDs were $8 each, wouldn't you be more likely to spend approx. $30 a month then? More likely to find four CDs a month that you want to have
---------
One of my best friends is the manager of a local AMC Theater. The theater gets zero revenue from the price of the tickets. The theaters get 100% of their revenue from concession sales. That's the major reason for the high price in concessions, b/c the theaters raise them to make higher profit margins from their only source of revenue. AFAIK and as far as he knows (AFAHK I guess) all theaters in the country operate this way. Just thought you'd like to know.
---------
Strange, the target="new" doesn't parse right...
Oh well, here's the link
Laissez-faire!
---------
---------
A great list, and I second whole-heartedly.
One addition, another 80's classic which everyone should check out is Vampire Hunter D . For early-eighties anime, it's extremely well done.
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
Current moderation as of 3:43pm CST:
Offtopic=1, Troll=1, Funny=7, Overrated=1, Total=10
I personally feel motivated to comment that the (current) seven people who feel this is "Funny" should never again receive moderation points. I remember the "good old days", when +5 was a damn funny or insightful comment that always made me think or laugh. As opposed to this trolling drivel, which only generates the response "man I miss the old slashdot".
I can't wait for this one to show up in meta-mod. Karma be damned.
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
Given that it's Friday, here's an update on my previous times for this week:
Monday: 7:00am - 8:30pm, 30-minute lunch: 13 Hours.
Tuesday: 7:30am - 5:30pm, 30-minute lunch: 9 1/2 Hours.
Wednesday: 7:00am - 7:15pm, 1-hour lunch: 11 1/4 Hours.
Wednesday Night: 11:00 - 3:00 from home: 4 Hours.
Thursday: 7:30am - 6:30pm, no lunch: 11 hours. Friday: 7:00am - 5:30pm (est), 1 hour lunch: 8 1/2 hours.
Grand total? FIFTY-SEVEN hours and fifteen minutes of work, in a single week. And that's not counting the at-home work I'll be putting in on some presentations this weekend.
Final point, even though this has been much discussed and pretty much agreed upon:
37 HOURS IS IN NO WAY AVERAGE, FOR THE IT INDUSTRY!!! Why? Because for those of you who say "yes I work 37 hours a week", there are lots like me who say "50-60 hours per week". And there aren't enough (if any) saying 15-25 to make the average come out to the mid/upper 30's.
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
>That's definitely a joke if you work with
;) And unfortuantely these type weeks are more the norm than the exception.
> computers (or any kind of technology).
Amen, brother. My official policy through my employer is that we work a total of 80-hours over a two-week pay period. Upon the discression of the employee, you are allowed to complete those 80-hours in practically any manner you see fit (flex-time, work 9 hours a day then take the second Friday off, etc).
But that's just official policy. In practice, take the current work week for example:
Monday: 7:00am - 8:30pm, 30-minute lunch: 13 Hours.
Tuesday: 7:30am - 5:30pm, 30-minute lunch: 9 1/2 Hours.
Wednesday: 7:00am - 7:15pm (heading home right after I post this comment), 1-hour lunch: 11 1/4 Hours.
That's almost 35 hours in a three day period... I beat the gov't expectation by Wednesday.
And don't get me started about the 24-7 on-call period, the weekend wakeup calls at 3am to tell me something is broken, etc etc...
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
I am posting this from a public terminal at the RSA2000 Conference, where Ian Goldberg (Zero Knowledge's chief scientist) is scheduled to talk tomorrow.
I've got his session scheduled... I plan to grab some of the "best" questions from this thread on Slashdot and corner Ian afterwards and see what he's got to say. I'll post the results of my quest here tomorrow after the session, if anyone is interested.
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
Y2K World Dispatches
Y2K Security Tracker
One of my favorites from the World Dispatches was:
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?