Stargate? Really? I didn't know that and I'm a fan. Do you have a season/episode reference? I have all the seasons on DVD. I wonder if they were censored too.
Exactly. Drinking in and of itself is not a bad thing. Drinking irresponsibly (such as driving while drunk) is the problem. Who better to teach responsible consumption than parents? When I was in high school everyone wanted to go out and get smashed every weekend. Drinking was "the thing" and every "cool" kid did it. I didn't actually drink in HS, not because of some horse shit puritanical view but because I was trying become a better distance runner and didn't want the carbonation in my system. I first drank in college when I was 20. For the next couple of years it was partying and drinking (well, as much as I ever partied at least). Looking back on that time I wasn't doing it because I liked the taste of beer (at the time), getting drunk or making an ass out of myself. I did it because society said I couldn't. Once I turned 21 it was no big deal and my consumption dropped to near zilch. Now I only drink socially and that's not very often.
Kids need to be exposed to these things much earlier in life than they are today. Once they reach the point that drinking is no big deal and not as cool as it once seemed, they'll do less of it. Once they have a chance to see the effects of it for themselves they won't be as likely to abuse it. Everything that's blamed on our youth today (drinking, driving problems, teen pregnancies and unsafe sex, drugs) can all be attributed to a lack of experience. Parents who treat their young adults as babies until the leave for college do their offspring (and the rest of us) a huge dis-service. They treat drinking, drugs, and sex as taboos but yet they never talk to their children about them. They simply say "No! You can't do this. You can't do that. You can't have any. Adults only!". How do parents expect their children to ever act like adults when the parents coddle their kids into their 20s? I'm not saying that parents should give their kids drugs to do in their presence (maybe weed if it's ever legalized, but certainly not any opiates). I am saying that kids should have their first drinks with their parents and learn to do it responsibly. Hell maybe even get drunk with their parents so they learn what it's like to lose control and hopefully gain some fear from that experience. Likewise parents should talk to their kids about sex, safe practices, saying no, etc. Telling them that they can't have these things will make them want it all the more.
Things like this really stick in my craw. A week or two ago some advocacy group was pushing the Feds to raise the driving limit to 18 and eliminate the graded learning period. That's makes a lot of fucking sense. The main thing young drivers need most, experience, is the one thing this group of fucknuts wants to take away from them. If anything kids should be forced to drive at a YOUNGER age. Kids should go through a multi-year driver education course beginning at 14. They should undergo considerable real-world training and evaluation throughout their high school years. They should drive on snow and ice. They should drive in poor visibility conditions like heavy fog and pouring rain. They should learn to change their own damn tires and check/change their own oil (no exceptions!). They should pass a battery of tests at each of the graded steps to progress to the next level. Stop wasting money on trying to catch and penalize young drivers for stupid mistakes. Focus our efforts and dollars on preventing those stupid mistakes to begin with. Parents should not be able to opt their kids out of this kid of training. Parents should not even be able to take their kids to the DMV at age 18 and get the kids their license without having gone through a lengthy course like this. Treat it like the Hunter's Safety course where all people born after a certain age must pass the course before they can get a driver's license.
And Lord help you if you ever wanted to get into politics later in life, that stuff will last forever, and can and will be dug up to be used against you.
It didn't hurt Bush Junior. It's all a matter of how much money you have to bury the problem.
You might have a point had the Civil War been fought about slavery. It wasn't. It was about commerce. Slavery was written in by the winners of the war to make their efforts sound more noble. The winner gets to rewrite history in their favor after all. It's like our Iraq, version 2. Saddam is dead and that's a good thing for the people of Iraq (except for the civilians who have been slaughtered in the streets at a significantly higher rate since we misguided invasion than ever occurred under Saddam's oppressive thumbs, but I digress). However, in no way was that the reason we invaded. We, the alleged winners, are rewriting history to claim that it was because Saddam was a bad guy; not because of yellow cake, aluminum cylinders, or because his mustache gave Bush Junior nightmares. By pointing this out I'm in no way implying that I'm pro-slavery or pro-Saddam. I do however like for arguments to be factual in nature.
Not really. A network admin should be able to track down the thing, but it will take a lot of work to scan network logs. From the network standpoint, it doesn't matter if the gateway is running on a PC, or running on a VM inside a PC... the network traffic looks the same.
It shouldn't take any competent netadm more than 5 minutes to track down any device to a specific port on a switch. There are no logs to look at. What do you think is logged that you'd want to look at to track it? Seriously, it's incredibly simple to do. The thing has an IP and for that IP to be useable on the network it must be in the RIB (read: route table). With less than a minute's work a netadm should be able to track down that route to the router that's originating it. I don't care how big your network it. It should take less than a minute. Once you've found the router originating the route you've almost certainly found the router with an L3 interface in the same broadcast domain as the target device (the router could also be redistributing a static route in which case the static route would point you to the device in possession of said prefix, or a trail of bread crumbs of multiple static routes that will eventually lead you to the device using that prefix). If the router is part of that broadcast domain then it will have an entry in the ARP table for the target IP and will give you the device's MAC. From that router's config the netadm can determine where all that broadcast domain is accessible. Ie, what L2 switches downstream of the router have that VLAN on it. The netadm can examine the CAM table (SAT in Cabletron-speak, bridge forward table in generic terms) to figure out which interface the target's MAC is associated with. That will point him to the correct downstream switch. The netadm will do the same thing on that switch to track the target device their the broadcast domain until he find the one access interface that the target device is connected to. Once he finds that interface he visits that wiring closet and tracks the cable down manually to the target device.
Really, it's much easier than it sounds. Once you've done this once or twice it will become second nature. This should not take a competent netadm more than 5 minutes. I don't care how big the network is. This isn't rocket science. The City of San Francisco is just trying to make their case sound worse than it really is. It would take a truly incompetent IT department to not be able to find that device. I would say that it was impossible to be that incompetent but I'm sure someone would try to prove me wrong.
I know of at least one station that has already done this
KLBY when the went fully-digital back in August. I'm sure there were others who did it even sooner. They cut the analog feed and are serving only the DTV feed to their area viewers. Of the 1629 stations in 211 markets who have informed NAB that they are broadcasting in digital, I'm sure more than a few of them are exclusively DTV.
I run IS-IS on my own SP network. I don't believe I've ever encountered any platform that support ES-ES though. I can't even think of any recent implementations of ES-IS for that matter.
I was an Apple Service Tech back in the late 90s during the Clones Wars(tm). Most of those things were pieces of shit. We had a stack of Umax clunkers that took up an entire set of shelves and overflowed into the junk room. They all died a horrible death. Their owners abandoned them and bought an official Apple replacement. Power Computing made some good stuff. DayStar wasn't too bad either. Moto, APS Tech and Radius were hit and miss.
Most people don't understand how bad this problem was for Apple. When a clone had a problem the user didn't call the cloner maker. On no. They called Apple. They saw "Mac OS" pop up on the screen when they fired up their clone. In their eyes they had an Apple. It cost Apple a bundle in support costs. It cost them even more in bad PR. If Apple Support turned away a Umax owner telling them to call Umax then that user saw that as a bad experience with Apple. Clones were a lose/lose situation for Apple.
I believe that's your provider giving you an easy way to drop BOGONs. Ie, static route 192.0.2.1 to Null0 and turn on uRPF on your peering interfaces. Personally I run my own RTBH on my SP network rather than depend on outside forces that can easily make a mistake and cause me to null route something important.
Also, since you're getting those RFC1918 prefixes, that tells me that you don't have basic sanity checks on your inbound prefixes (unless you know what your provider was handing you from what I said above and were accepting those prefixes so you can null route them). I would highly advise sanity filters. I don't know your skill level (I could be talking to Yakov Rekhter or Kirk Lougheed for all I know, but I doubt it) but I can give you some config to help out if you need.
Lets be clear about this. RIAA doesn't want the students to be defendants. They want their parent's check book to be the defendant. Or the student's financial aide check to be the defendant. They don't give a shit about educating the kids. They only want the payout.
Look at our main female platform diver, Laura Wilkinson, vs her Chinese counterparts. The Chinese divers make practically no splash for one simple reason. They don't have any hips! Literally. They don't displace any water with their hips because they simply aren't there. They aren't women; they're kids that have been starved to death IMHO. Laura is shaped like a woman and has muscles, hips and other natural curves. Frankly I'd call the condition of the Chinese women to be an unfair advantage. The one Chinese girl said that she was moved to platform diving from gymnastics because she doesn't like to eat (her own words). Honestly I think she'd be considered anorexic if given an honest medical evaluation by an independent doctor.
Ideally judges would be able to compensate for this during the scoring process. One former gymnast commented on how little weight grace and artistry is being given in these Olympics vs Olympics of the past. Part of that is the new scoring systems to be sure.
Plus little kids simply feel indestructible. When I was a little kid I jumped off our 2-story roof without fear. A few short years later I knew better. Little kids think they are indestructible and in many ways they are. Mind over matter. Playing little kids is simply dirty pool.
I would encourage you and anyone else who has 2 whits about him or her to go to CNN's website and vote in the poll on the right side of the main page. I would also encourage you to comment on the article that goes with the story. Personally I will not send my future kids to a school that coddles my kids and puts them in time out. If they teacher or school administration can tan my kid's ass then I'll find some place that can and will. George Carlin summed it up best when he referred to this sissy-nanny society that we've become as the "Pussification of America". That's exactly what we've become. A bunch of damn pansies (not referring to homosexuals, so don't take it that way) who can't do anything for themselves. I swear, kids today have never even got dirt on their shoes, scrapped their knees or fell out of a tree! Wusses.
I've got an Apple 300 baud modem I'll sell. Any takers? It was bought with an Apple IIe, dual 5.25" bays, 80 column text card, original Apple Color ImageWriter, and a color monitor with TILT! That's right. You heard me. I said tilt, baby. You press a button on the side and you hear a mechanical grinding noise and the CRT would slowly tilt down, then pause and then start back up. It's was schweeet. Make me an offer!
I run a fairly small ISP here in the Midwest. I monitor our Internet traffic for some very specific signs of malicious activity. Almost 90% of the attacks, scans and probes we get currently come from China. Speaking for the security community in general, China is being so blatant with their attacks because they have no reason to hide the source. Everyone knows these attacks are originating from China so why bother expending the resources to hide in the shadows of Joe Blow's compromised Windows PC that offers you limited resources from which to scan and launch attacks? Do your attacking from your own government-sponsored network on a platform more conducive to launching attacks where you know you won't get shut down (why would your boss shut you down for doing the job they hired you to do?).
I'm not talking about spam, worms or other generic crap. I'm talking about SSH scans and Rumpelstiltskin attacks on open SSH daemons, SSH exploits, SQL queries followed by attempts to gain administrative access to only those machines that responded to the earlier query (and the source of the attacks differ from the source of the probes), DNS exploits and cache poisoning attempts, etc. Seriously, almost 90% comes from China. Watch you logs sometime and do a little research on the RIR allocations that the attacks come from. Personally I think we're already in the midst of a cyber war with China.
Slashdot Mirror
Stargate? Really? I didn't know that and I'm a fan. Do you have a season/episode reference? I have all the seasons on DVD. I wonder if they were censored too.
No, that would be the US Department of Interior.
What, they shook McCain's head and collected the rocks that fell out? Of course Palin would say that they were only 6,000 years old.
No offense, but if after 10 years you still haven't figured out Bind then maybe there's a reason... greenhorn. ;-)
Exactly. Drinking in and of itself is not a bad thing. Drinking irresponsibly (such as driving while drunk) is the problem. Who better to teach responsible consumption than parents? When I was in high school everyone wanted to go out and get smashed every weekend. Drinking was "the thing" and every "cool" kid did it. I didn't actually drink in HS, not because of some horse shit puritanical view but because I was trying become a better distance runner and didn't want the carbonation in my system. I first drank in college when I was 20. For the next couple of years it was partying and drinking (well, as much as I ever partied at least). Looking back on that time I wasn't doing it because I liked the taste of beer (at the time), getting drunk or making an ass out of myself. I did it because society said I couldn't. Once I turned 21 it was no big deal and my consumption dropped to near zilch. Now I only drink socially and that's not very often.
Kids need to be exposed to these things much earlier in life than they are today. Once they reach the point that drinking is no big deal and not as cool as it once seemed, they'll do less of it. Once they have a chance to see the effects of it for themselves they won't be as likely to abuse it. Everything that's blamed on our youth today (drinking, driving problems, teen pregnancies and unsafe sex, drugs) can all be attributed to a lack of experience. Parents who treat their young adults as babies until the leave for college do their offspring (and the rest of us) a huge dis-service. They treat drinking, drugs, and sex as taboos but yet they never talk to their children about them. They simply say "No! You can't do this. You can't do that. You can't have any. Adults only!". How do parents expect their children to ever act like adults when the parents coddle their kids into their 20s? I'm not saying that parents should give their kids drugs to do in their presence (maybe weed if it's ever legalized, but certainly not any opiates). I am saying that kids should have their first drinks with their parents and learn to do it responsibly. Hell maybe even get drunk with their parents so they learn what it's like to lose control and hopefully gain some fear from that experience. Likewise parents should talk to their kids about sex, safe practices, saying no, etc. Telling them that they can't have these things will make them want it all the more.
Things like this really stick in my craw. A week or two ago some advocacy group was pushing the Feds to raise the driving limit to 18 and eliminate the graded learning period. That's makes a lot of fucking sense. The main thing young drivers need most, experience, is the one thing this group of fucknuts wants to take away from them. If anything kids should be forced to drive at a YOUNGER age. Kids should go through a multi-year driver education course beginning at 14. They should undergo considerable real-world training and evaluation throughout their high school years. They should drive on snow and ice. They should drive in poor visibility conditions like heavy fog and pouring rain. They should learn to change their own damn tires and check/change their own oil (no exceptions!). They should pass a battery of tests at each of the graded steps to progress to the next level. Stop wasting money on trying to catch and penalize young drivers for stupid mistakes. Focus our efforts and dollars on preventing those stupid mistakes to begin with. Parents should not be able to opt their kids out of this kid of training. Parents should not even be able to take their kids to the DMV at age 18 and get the kids their license without having gone through a lengthy course like this. Treat it like the Hunter's Safety course where all people born after a certain age must pass the course before they can get a driver's license.
I digress.
It didn't hurt Bush Junior. It's all a matter of how much money you have to bury the problem.
Game on.
Like bugs to a bug zapper.... Zero-G moths!
It shouldn't take any competent netadm more than 5 minutes to track down any device to a specific port on a switch. There are no logs to look at. What do you think is logged that you'd want to look at to track it? Seriously, it's incredibly simple to do. The thing has an IP and for that IP to be useable on the network it must be in the RIB (read: route table). With less than a minute's work a netadm should be able to track down that route to the router that's originating it. I don't care how big your network it. It should take less than a minute. Once you've found the router originating the route you've almost certainly found the router with an L3 interface in the same broadcast domain as the target device (the router could also be redistributing a static route in which case the static route would point you to the device in possession of said prefix, or a trail of bread crumbs of multiple static routes that will eventually lead you to the device using that prefix). If the router is part of that broadcast domain then it will have an entry in the ARP table for the target IP and will give you the device's MAC. From that router's config the netadm can determine where all that broadcast domain is accessible. Ie, what L2 switches downstream of the router have that VLAN on it. The netadm can examine the CAM table (SAT in Cabletron-speak, bridge forward table in generic terms) to figure out which interface the target's MAC is associated with. That will point him to the correct downstream switch. The netadm will do the same thing on that switch to track the target device their the broadcast domain until he find the one access interface that the target device is connected to. Once he finds that interface he visits that wiring closet and tracks the cable down manually to the target device.
Really, it's much easier than it sounds. Once you've done this once or twice it will become second nature. This should not take a competent netadm more than 5 minutes. I don't care how big the network is. This isn't rocket science. The City of San Francisco is just trying to make their case sound worse than it really is. It would take a truly incompetent IT department to not be able to find that device. I would say that it was impossible to be that incompetent but I'm sure someone would try to prove me wrong.
Are you waiting for someone to disagree with you? ;-)
I know of at least one station that has already done this KLBY when the went fully-digital back in August. I'm sure there were others who did it even sooner. They cut the analog feed and are serving only the DTV feed to their area viewers. Of the 1629 stations in 211 markets who have informed NAB that they are broadcasting in digital, I'm sure more than a few of them are exclusively DTV.
You mean like in Indiana when they tried to define pi as 4.0, 3.2 or some other 7 other possible numbers?
Ah ha. There's your problem!
I run IS-IS on my own SP network. I don't believe I've ever encountered any platform that support ES-ES though. I can't even think of any recent implementations of ES-IS for that matter.
Most people don't understand how bad this problem was for Apple. When a clone had a problem the user didn't call the cloner maker. On no. They called Apple. They saw "Mac OS" pop up on the screen when they fired up their clone. In their eyes they had an Apple. It cost Apple a bundle in support costs. It cost them even more in bad PR. If Apple Support turned away a Umax owner telling them to call Umax then that user saw that as a bad experience with Apple. Clones were a lose/lose situation for Apple.
Also, since you're getting those RFC1918 prefixes, that tells me that you don't have basic sanity checks on your inbound prefixes (unless you know what your provider was handing you from what I said above and were accepting those prefixes so you can null route them). I would highly advise sanity filters. I don't know your skill level (I could be talking to Yakov Rekhter or Kirk Lougheed for all I know, but I doubt it) but I can give you some config to help out if you need.
My grandpa always said that cattle and horses ate facing the wind...
Lets be clear about this. RIAA doesn't want the students to be defendants. They want their parent's check book to be the defendant. Or the student's financial aide check to be the defendant. They don't give a shit about educating the kids. They only want the payout.
Yeah, who would have thought that it was possible to make it through childhood to being an adult and still have all their teeth!
Just kidding.... :-)
Ideally judges would be able to compensate for this during the scoring process. One former gymnast commented on how little weight grace and artistry is being given in these Olympics vs Olympics of the past. Part of that is the new scoring systems to be sure.
Plus little kids simply feel indestructible. When I was a little kid I jumped off our 2-story roof without fear. A few short years later I knew better. Little kids think they are indestructible and in many ways they are. Mind over matter. Playing little kids is simply dirty pool.
I would encourage you and anyone else who has 2 whits about him or her to go to CNN's website and vote in the poll on the right side of the main page. I would also encourage you to comment on the article that goes with the story. Personally I will not send my future kids to a school that coddles my kids and puts them in time out. If they teacher or school administration can tan my kid's ass then I'll find some place that can and will. George Carlin summed it up best when he referred to this sissy-nanny society that we've become as the "Pussification of America". That's exactly what we've become. A bunch of damn pansies (not referring to homosexuals, so don't take it that way) who can't do anything for themselves. I swear, kids today have never even got dirt on their shoes, scrapped their knees or fell out of a tree! Wusses.
Because it's embarrassing to somebody in power. Simple as that.
I've got an Apple 300 baud modem I'll sell. Any takers? It was bought with an Apple IIe, dual 5.25" bays, 80 column text card, original Apple Color ImageWriter, and a color monitor with TILT! That's right. You heard me. I said tilt, baby. You press a button on the side and you hear a mechanical grinding noise and the CRT would slowly tilt down, then pause and then start back up. It's was schweeet. Make me an offer!
I run a fairly small ISP here in the Midwest. I monitor our Internet traffic for some very specific signs of malicious activity. Almost 90% of the attacks, scans and probes we get currently come from China. Speaking for the security community in general, China is being so blatant with their attacks because they have no reason to hide the source. Everyone knows these attacks are originating from China so why bother expending the resources to hide in the shadows of Joe Blow's compromised Windows PC that offers you limited resources from which to scan and launch attacks? Do your attacking from your own government-sponsored network on a platform more conducive to launching attacks where you know you won't get shut down (why would your boss shut you down for doing the job they hired you to do?).
I'm not talking about spam, worms or other generic crap. I'm talking about SSH scans and Rumpelstiltskin attacks on open SSH daemons, SSH exploits, SQL queries followed by attempts to gain administrative access to only those machines that responded to the earlier query (and the source of the attacks differ from the source of the probes), DNS exploits and cache poisoning attempts, etc. Seriously, almost 90% comes from China. Watch you logs sometime and do a little research on the RIR allocations that the attacks come from. Personally I think we're already in the midst of a cyber war with China.