Most likely there are multiple sources in NYC, but 20 minutes of googling couldn't find them. You should post a request for location info on the biodieselnow.com forums for NY/NJ. That will get you in touch with local enthusiasts who can point you on to a co-op or new stations that haven't made it to the typically slow-to-update biodiesel.org and DOE's site.
PS: yes, I know that if you can't buy b20 (much less b100) it makes my "pro" arguments for biodiesel bunk. However, if you're passionate about being good, you're welcome to go make some biodiesel yourself. It ain't hard to make a five gallon batch - the info is out there. That's another post, though.
Today is your lucky day! I'm going to give you a quick Biodiesel education.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/ bi odiesel.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiese l
In pure, 100% Biodiesel (according to the EPA):
Does it scale? That remains to be seen. HOWEVER: there is a lot of talk in Biodiesel circles of using oil-producing algae as a relatively cheap, fast and PLENTIFUL method of producing a LOT of oil.
Air polution? Particulates? According to the EPA: 50% reduction in carbon monoxide vs. regular diesel. 70% reduction in particulate emissions vs. regular diesel. 40% reduction in Total HydroCarbon (THC aka big chunk of greenhouse gases) emissions vs. regular diesel. 100% reduction in sufate emissions. 9% increase (BAD) in nitrogen oxide emissions.
Biodiesel is NOT perfect. It is NOT your personal saviour. It does, however, work RIGHT NOW. If you have a diesel, your karma goes DOWN every time you drive without biodiesel.
A few PS's and notes here: I wish a hybrid maker would make a diesel hybrid that is specifically marketed to run off of 100% biodiesel. What a green marketing orgy they could have.
Also: I wish biodiesel advocates would actually stop posting all the benefits of biodiesel vs. regular diesel. Anyone who spends five minutes researching biodiesel knows it's way, WAY better than regular diesel. Hell, you can make it in your garage if you're vaguely mechanically inclined and have the time/money ($500-$1000) for some equipment.
Instead, I wish that biodiesel advocates would post biodiesel's stats against gasoline/hybrids. This is the info everyone cares about but I think it's hard to find...or almost impossible - you need to do a lot of your own research, statistics-gathering and basic math to reach a conclusion that may or may not be accurate.
Pro|Structure of Portland, OR has two guys that have got Linux running on, I believe, a Linksys WRT54G. NoCatAuth is included. Otherwise, if you feel slightly more adventureous, you can install Linux on an old laptop (I used an old P2 Compaq) with a wireless NIC and a wired connection and, viola (aka a lot of time and configuration later) you have wireless.
Uhhhh yeah. Using DD when tools like Partimage are available is basically just silly. I have used Partimage most recently to back up a WinXP SP2 data partition (NTFS of course) and then proceeded to destroy it, recreate it and then restore the data via Partimage. No problems.
In the era of 30 to 120+ GB HD's I do not have the time or patience to wait for DD to back up non-existant data unless it's for a serious (law enforcement is involved) situation.
Someone else mentioned making a boot floppy. Bah! I'll make a Knoppix ISO and hit knoppix 2 at the boot options screen if I don't want the pretty GUI but I do want most every tool I could possibly have a need for vs. the limited functionality boot floppy.
I'm getting about 18-20KB/sec from Microsoft and 15-20KB/sec from the Torrent. I wish MS made it easy to know what the MD5 hash for the file should be.
This is a ridiculous article. At the very least, it's a poor headline.
So, after reading the article (!), I have concluded:
- RSF says Yahoo is bad because they filter search results - in order to get their foot in the door of a 1 billion-person country.
- RSF says Google COULD go bad because they just recently partnered with a company that does currently filter results.
- RSF says, IMO grudgingly, Google is NOT CURRENTLY being bad - they display all results and do not filter.
- RSF notes Google has been banned in the past (for a week) for not filtering results.
RSF, heed this wake-up call: first of all, one billion people represent a shitload of money. Companies exist to make money. Google has, LUCKY FOR YOU, made money and NOT been Evil China's Favorite Search Engine.
Second of all, Google's past actions mean nothing? Perhaps they'll use their stake in Baidu to force them to not filter? That seems just as likely a conclusion, based on the past, as assuming that by acquiring a stake in another company means that they themselves will suddenly change tack and start filtering their results. Which you admit they haven't done.
I normally respect organisations like RSF but jesus harold christ they're really grasping at straws here. I wish all companies operated as ethically as Google does. Which is not to say Google is perfect or a paragon of virtue - merely that they appear to be better than their competitors.
Although I grew up on an Atari ST520, later upgraded to a 1040 (eleet) a Packard Bell-produced P60 with 8MB of RAM and a 420MB HD was my first computer, obtained in late 1993. Windows 3.11. Lotta fond memories, even if some of them involve a lot of cursing and head-scratching, most at Windows. Occasionally some weird piece of proprietary Packard Bell technology would rear its head but on the whole it wasn't too bad of a computer.
That computer was eventually donated to FreeGeek - I still have the Atari, though.
I used to think this line of thought - "f-it, just switch them." wouldn't work. So, I took a baby step and when my brother bought a new computer, I told him "No IE. You get Mozilla. Tabbed browsing and good cookie control, so people can't track you."
He's fine with it. Of course, he's only 25 and open to new things.
As a fellow Portlander, don't group me in your "we". I don't firebomb anything - that's just stupid, especially when you do a crappy job of it.
Either people will walk the talk and continue going to their favorite local place (Stumptown!) or they will go to Starbucks like the corporate-lovin', bad-coffee-swillin' ignorant masses that they are.
Question/comment: Because some people really seem to prefer corporate-style coffee, what makes you think they'd go to the local places anyway? Of course, there are a lot of people that are on the fence (myself included) who don't really give a shit - their preference is the local place, perhaps, but when you need a cup and you're in a hurry or whatever, Starbucks will do.
PS: Despite the fact that Stumptown makes the best coffee, fuck it - give me a cup of Irish Breakfast or Prince of Wales if I can find it.
I have mod points and really wanted to moderate in this article but there's no way I can't reply to this.
First of all, this is a rest stop. You will stay there for an extra five to 10 minutes, tops, to check for really important emails or weather info. And that's if you're really lax with your schedule. When I'm going on a road trip long enough to warrant a stop at a Rest Stop it's about long enough to run into the bathroom and walk around for about 1-2 minutes. Then back on the road - daylight's burnin'.
As for people realizing they can be anonymous... Ha! If you are a "hacker" and haven't figured out that being easily or quickly tracked down is a thing of the past...then you are NOT a "hacker".
Right now I can take my gear (laptop, good 200mw Senao wifi card, good omni roofmount/cantenna, DC-to-AC converter) and get access virtually anywhere I want. Portland, OR is a very unwired city. If I want to try to break into some web site or do something naughty, I'll wardrive for five minutes, find an open-looking AP with a good parking spot and test it out. Usually internet access can be had with absolutely NO trickery (ie: you get a DHCP-assigned IP just by asking, along with proper DNS stuff and all that) 4 outta 5 times.
If you think you might have got someone's interest/are being "traced"/someone's going to the physical address of the owner of that IP...Just drive away. Go a half-dozen blocks. Try again. Eventually, if you aren't a complete idiot yet you keep tripping alarms, some noisy or observant person might spot you idling in your car and note the make/model/colour/lic. plate. Otherwise, the police or feds are going to have to shut down a large-block radius and search every car and every person with a laptop-sized bag or bigger and hope that the suspect was too stupid to simply stash the laptop somewhere convenient. Or, if you're a real badass, just get some funding from one of those naughty terrorist organisations and get a bunch of $200 laptops, cheap cards, cheap antennas and good batteries. If you think you're really going to be caught, chuck it in a trash can and walk away.
Lastly...There will be no cameras, because you are not sitting at a traffic light or in a very confining street. Think about it. Which car is the camera going to take a picture of?
I love WiFi, but if you're a bad hacker type, the world is currently your oyster. Wanna release a virus? Do it wirelessly - but be sure your code is anonymous, too.:P Wanna do some "anonymous" but not terribly high-volume spam (bandwidth limitations of home users)? Wireless. Wanna harass some other internet user? Wireless.
If you keep it up long enough you'll probably get sloppy and get caught. For some limited duration/scope activities, though, it's very, very difficult to get caught.
I know what I read in the article, which was written in 1977. When did you say you worked in an LCC? I'm guessing it wasn't in the mid 70's and that's when these issues were prevalent. I never said in 2004 LCC's were unsecure places.
I suggest that you re-read my comment...and read the article at least once. It's a long one so I know it's extra hard for the slashdot crowd.:P
That seems to be the concensus at this point. People have repeatedly pointed out that the *physical* security was VERY VERY STRICT. Just because the password, a deterrant that top-level people thought was VERY VERY necessary was completely missing...oh, that's fine. They still have keys and ummm other stuff, right?
RTFA. Blair and Brewer point out that, at the time, the military wanted to improve their public relations and would give TOURS of LCC's! B&B repeatedly point out that virtually anyone who asked could get access! The physical security was crap and the codes weren't in place. IE, any moderately funded and motivated terrorist group could have had a field day if they'd know about this severe weakness.
"Four individuals (two persons in each of two separate LCCs in the same squadron) acting in concert could succeed in mechanically launching one or more missiles." In seconds. Not minutes or hours.
"[...] annually thousands of visitors holding no clearance whatsoever were permitted access to operational LCCs."
"Located in each LCC are two launch keys, one for each member of the crew, and the codes needed to authenticate presidential launch directives. Only the launch keys, not the codes, are physical prerequisites for generating valid launch commands, the purpose of the codes being exclusively that of authenticating an execution directive."
B&B make it sound as if you happened to be on a tour and decided to overpower the minimal security force (two crew members + a couple of guards at best (isolated locations, remember?) then it's good to go - you already know the launch codes because it's always all zero's. Or, even worse:
"Technically, crew members can launch a nuclear attack with or without approval from higher authority. Unless PAL or its equivalent forecloses this option, as many as 50 missiles could be illicitly fired. Moreover, unless adequate precautions were instituted, an even more drastic option would be available. Crew members could conspire in the formatting and transmittal of strategic strike directives, deceiving the full contingent of Strategic Air Command (SAC) LCCs, as well as higher authorities, into reacting to a spurious launch directive as if it were valid and authentic. Or they could render the U.S. strategic force virtually impotent by formatting and transmitting messages invalidating the active inventory of presidential execution codes. Finally, crew members could aid accomplices in stealing thermonuclear warheads from missiles on active alert."
Keep in mind that Blair was working in an LCC as a crew member in the mid-70's. He was obviously in a unique position (which virtually none of us were or are) to write this paper. His direct observation on how to subvert the access/security controls on the ICBM's trump anyone else's estimate on what might or might not happen. His letters and paper in 1977 are basically what got those locks activated in... 1977.
It is especially hypocritical that the majority of the Slashdot comments were fine with this poor use of a password mechanism. In your own place of business you most likely would NEVER allow this to happen and you just run some servers - as opposed to ICBM's capable turning your city into a big kitty litter box. Don't defend the actions of those in charge in the 60's and 70's. They were flat out wrong and frankly should have been thrown in military prison for such a massive security breach.
That's an extremely good idea - I'd never thought of that before. The book that the judge throws at you would be significantly less thick, that's for sure. A good thing, really. Old laws that don't apply (or shouldn't) could just get not renewed. Excellent.
I can tell you that even the "mountains" are in the right "spot" - the west side of Portland has some small hills that top out around, oh, I dunno, 500 feet or so. The Cascades are a bit further out west (60 miles).
The point is truly that Springfield, NT *could* be virtually anywhere. Obviously, The Simpsons' Springfield borrows from multiple cities, some of which are completely fictional. The attempt to point to a city and definitively say "This is THE city that Springfield is based upon" is a pointless and impossible one.
Ha! Your Netgear does NOT do what my AP does
on
Open Source Hotspots
·
· Score: 1
http://wiki.personaltelco.net/index.cgi?Node172
I took an old Compaq laptop (p2/333, 196MB RAM, 6GB HD) that I got for $50 from a company sale. Added a Senao ($80) 200mw wifi card with external antenna connections. I'm currently using a 5.5 dBi omni ($20) with plans to upgrade to a 12 dBi roof-mount.
Additional security has been provided by the already-in-place Cisco 1900 Catalyst switch. VLAN2, which is what my AP & main linux-based server are on - can not talk to VLAN1, which is what the rest of the home network is on.
My total cost, to date, has been $150. I already had loads of single-height NICs laying around, otherwise that would have been another $10-20. Not much more than what an AP cost 1-2 years ago. However, the differences are:
- My AP has better range than a commerically-built AP because it has a better card and better antenna. I can quite easily and cheaply ($100) purchase a 25 dBi parabolic grid antenna and blast my signal 10-15 miles away over a mostly-unobstructed surface. Your purchased product can not do this. A 12 dBi omni will work with a decent antenna on the other end through four blocks of trees and houses. I know because a fellow member of Portland's Personal Telco Project and a friend of mine are doing just that. The friend uses a Linksys WAP-11 (I think, or is it the WET-11?) with the rubber duckie antenna + a half-moon reflector grid behind the antenna for an extra boost.
- I have more control over my AP than probably an AP that can be purchased for under $200. Actually, I probably have more control over my AP than any AP you can purchase, period. It's Linux on a computer, duh.
Of course, my time has value but, since I learned a lot about wifi and debian during the course of the project...I count myself as being financially ahead in that respect.
A commerically-built AP has many "advantages" over mine in that you can buy one right now and have it set up in 30 minutes or less. If you want simple wifi in your house, that's all you need to do - that's all 99.99% of people do.
Of course, 2/3rds of those people don't use WAP encryption or any sort of access-blocking methods. That just makes wardriving and internet-access-while-traveling that much more enjoyable.:)
When one builds an AP using Linux, one tends to be a LOT more aware of security risks and how to mitigate them. While I don't use WAP or any means of hiding/encrypting the data at a low network level I do encourage my wireless users to use SSH and tunnel the important stuff (email is the big one).
Faust7 is right about this one. Frankly, OCR is ok, but not great - on nice text on book-or-better paper. Handwritten notes? With equations? No. Not unless your profs have some damn fine handwriting and we all know that that is absolutely not the case.
My advice is the same as Faust7's with these additions: spend some of that money on a really nice keyboard, wrist-rest and/or maybe a nice monitor. You are going to be needing all three. If there are any left over funds, get some really nice tea. I suggest Twinnings English Breakfast or Prince of Wales, if you're going to go bagged.
$3 is with a *healthy* profit margin. And that's probably also from virgin oil. When you collect the oil yourself (or have a co-op do it for you)...the oil is free. You need to heat the used oil up so you can filter it, but we're not talking about anything fancy here - just a fine mesh filter after you've filtered all the big chunks out.
B20 is "ok". There's no reason not to use B100, however - unless you are in a COLD environment. Then maybe a 50/50 mix or just put in some cold-weather treatment/mixture with your biodiesel.
Let's do the numbers - according to the EPA (it's a PDF):
- B100 = 50% lower carbon monoxide emissions.
- B100 = 70% reduction in particulate emissions. Particulate emissions is a fancy way of saying "the stuff that causes respitory ailments, IE asthma and lung cancer."
- B100 = 40% reduction in Total HydroCarbon emissions. THC (not the good kind) is one of the causes global warming. Keep in mind that this carbon was NOT pulled out from deep in the ground and re-introduced into the carbon cycle. It came from plants that were recently living. Net addition to the carbon cycle = zero. Can't say that with regular diesel, created from oil/carbon that has been out of the cycle for millions of years.
- B100 = 100% reduction in sulfate emissions. Sulfate is used to lubricate parts. Biodiesel is naturally lubricating.
So what's the drawback? Here it is:
- B100 = 9% increase in nitrous oxide emissions. This is not a good one.
NOx is one of the three nasties that make up smog. The other two are carbon monoxide and THC. You can read up more about NOx emissions here: http://www.serconline.org/biodiesel/fact.html
Basically, while NOx increases are bad it's offset by the drastic decreases of carbon monoxide and THC. And, good news, they're working on methods to reduce NOx emissions. We may see some reductions in 2005-2007 when new equipment will start showing up on diesel in order to comply with a law set to take effect in 2007. That law basically says that regular diesel needs to be much, much cleaner - same goes for the new vehicles that will run diesel.
Other drawbacks? Well, commercially available biodiesel is VERY hard to find. Portland, OR is a fairly progressive city. We have only a few B20 pumps and only one or two major suppliers of B100. Co-ops will help make up the short-term unavailability to those in the know - but it would be better if many stations carried it right at the pump.
To make matters worse, most B100 suppliers charge more for B100 than for diesel. There's no reason to, especially when you consider that a co-op like the one I'm involved in can make B100 for as little as $1.00-1.50/gal. We leave it up to our buyers to acquire PUC cards - which means they're sort of like truckers, paying road taxes quarterly. Makes it easier on the co-op to sell to people who won't be using the fuel in on-road vehicles. Road taxes account for about another.50/gallon. Still cheaper than regular diesel which is currently at $2.20-2.25/gal around here.
Another drawback: can you tell me how many car (not truck) manufacturers currently produce a diesel that's sold in the US? I can: VW and Mercedes. The cheapest new diesel from VW will set you back approximately $17,775 according to the Kelly Blue Book site.
- The VW Golf TDI (diesel) manual is $17,775.
- The VW Golf TDI (diesel) auto is $18,850.
- The VW Golf GL 4-cyl (gas) manual is $15,183.
- The VW Golf GL 4-cyl (gas) auto is $16,702.
So, you're going to pay about $2,500 or more for your brand spankin' new diesel car. Since the gas milage rocks so much, however, you'll make that back if you keep the car for 6-7 years according to the EPA: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
That's about it for the drawbacks. So why isn't it more popular, you ask? Well, who drives a diesel car - how many diesel owners do you know, for that matter? Can you count them all on one hand? Now, are *any* of them environmentally aware? To the point where they'd consider running a "new" fuel that they're uneducated or unsure about?
Unmodified engines. The only modifications one would need to make:
* If your diesel vehicle is 10 years or older you will eventually need to swap out the natural rubber fuel lines for synthetic ones. Less than $20 in parts.
* If you've been running diesel for awhile now and are switching to 100% biodiesel you will probably need to change your fuel filter after a tank or two. B100 cleans your fuel tank, lines, etc. All that gets filtered.
Biodiesel can be made from a variety of oils (used or new) + methanol or ethanol + lye + heat (basically). It can be for as little as $1/gallon, if you're buying in bulk and getting your used oil for free. Most places will give their oil away for free since they normally have to pay someone to haul it away for them.
Sure, there are drawbacks. The positives outweigh the negatives, though.
Frankly if I'm going to have to pay as much (or more) than the new physical CD costs, well, f-it. I'll go buy the CD. I'll have the actual media then and also be able to rip it and distribute it to as many computers as I wish.
Either RIAA is absolutely blinded by greed (a distinct possibility) or they might just be blinded by their lust for power/control. Consider this: if people think like I do and don't want to pay as much for the restricted-ethereal-copy as they do for the free-as-a-bird physical media...and RIAA secretly knows this... might they be simply trying to pressure Apple into raising their prices in order to have them eventually fail the iTunes business?
At that point the RIAA could point to iTunes and say, "Hey, people and Congress, the people don't want legal stuff! Let us make evil non redbook-standard CD's that are laden with DRM! Protect our braindead ancient way of doing business!"
I recently bought two (my first two) songs on iTunes and enjoyed the experience. But it's pushing it to ask me to spend 10-12 right now to get all the files that made up the original CD. If it goes up to $14-17, not a chance. I'll buy a used CD or I'll get it from Gnutella or I'll just listen to the damn radio. $.99/song is the LIMIT, not the start. Otherwise, I want the physical media and the dead tree art.
What's even more important than pixels?
on
Beyond Megapixels
·
· Score: 2, Informative
- The quality of the glass. Apparently some prosumers care about this, see Canon's recent PowerShot Pro1 offering. Almost all DSLR owners at the very least *are aware* that glass makes a huge difference - even if they can't afford the best.
- The quality of the body and mechanicals. No point in getting a nice digicam or DSLR when it's going to break in six months/5,000 images.
- The camera's firmware. Canon Digital Rebel owners know what I'm talking about. While firmware won't make or break a camera it CAN have a big impact. If the camera doesn't let you do what you need to do, all the glass and megapixels won't mean poop.
- Many others have mentioned this: egronomics. If you're spending time trying to find the button that lets you do what you need to do then you've missed the shot.
- Control over the camera. I think this is actually a bigger deal than megapixels or glass. If you don't have the control over the camera that you need, then everything else doesn't matter. This is more of a prosumer concern than a "I just wanna take some pictures"-consumer. However, it does matter. That's why SLR's are popular - people want control.
Funny, but in my friend's case, quite true. The Personal Telco Project in Portland, OR runs several hundred nodes in the metro area. Perhaps 20-25 are high-profile nodes, in businesses.
However, many are in residential neighborhoods. My friend couldn't get DSL at his house, but four block away his PTP-friendly neighbor already had it. With the aid of a Linksys WET-11 and WAP-11 plus a bit of a boost to the WET-11's antenna (I think) via a half-moon reflector, he manages to get access to the internet - FOUR blocks away. 802.11b + good equipment = distance, baby.
Running a similar node in a secure (!) fashion is not necessarily that difficult. You can check out my notes on the node-on-a-laptop I did here: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/Node172
Slashdot Mirror
According to the DOE and biodiesel.org, your state sucks. :P
Most likely there are multiple sources in NYC, but 20 minutes of googling couldn't find them. You should post a request for location info on the biodieselnow.com forums for NY/NJ. That will get you in touch with local enthusiasts who can point you on to a co-op or new stations that haven't made it to the typically slow-to-update biodiesel.org and DOE's site.
PS: yes, I know that if you can't buy b20 (much less b100) it makes my "pro" arguments for biodiesel bunk. However, if you're passionate about being good, you're welcome to go make some biodiesel yourself. It ain't hard to make a five gallon batch - the info is out there. That's another post, though.
Today is your lucky day! I'm going to give you a quick Biodiesel education.
/ bi odiesel.pdfe l
...or almost impossible - you need to do a lot of your own research, statistics-gathering and basic math to reach a conclusion that may or may not be accurate.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodies
In pure, 100% Biodiesel (according to the EPA):
Does it scale? That remains to be seen. HOWEVER: there is a lot of talk in Biodiesel circles of using oil-producing algae as a relatively cheap, fast and PLENTIFUL method of producing a LOT of oil.
Air polution? Particulates? According to the EPA: 50% reduction in carbon monoxide vs. regular diesel. 70% reduction in particulate emissions vs. regular diesel. 40% reduction in Total HydroCarbon (THC aka big chunk of greenhouse gases) emissions vs. regular diesel. 100% reduction in sufate emissions. 9% increase (BAD) in nitrogen oxide emissions.
Biodiesel is NOT perfect. It is NOT your personal saviour. It does, however, work RIGHT NOW. If you have a diesel, your karma goes DOWN every time you drive without biodiesel.
A few PS's and notes here: I wish a hybrid maker would make a diesel hybrid that is specifically marketed to run off of 100% biodiesel. What a green marketing orgy they could have.
Also: I wish biodiesel advocates would actually stop posting all the benefits of biodiesel vs. regular diesel. Anyone who spends five minutes researching biodiesel knows it's way, WAY better than regular diesel. Hell, you can make it in your garage if you're vaguely mechanically inclined and have the time/money ($500-$1000) for some equipment.
Instead, I wish that biodiesel advocates would post biodiesel's stats against gasoline/hybrids. This is the info everyone cares about but I think it's hard to find
Hmmm. You are correct. Perhaps the viola could be wirelessly mic'd? Perhaps I'd better quit before the hole hits china.
It's called "NoCatAuth". Read more here or here.
Pro|Structure of Portland, OR has two guys that have got Linux running on, I believe, a Linksys WRT54G. NoCatAuth is included. Otherwise, if you feel slightly more adventureous, you can install Linux on an old laptop (I used an old P2 Compaq) with a wireless NIC and a wired connection and, viola (aka a lot of time and configuration later) you have wireless.
Uhhhh yeah. Using DD when tools like Partimage are available is basically just silly. I have used Partimage most recently to back up a WinXP SP2 data partition (NTFS of course) and then proceeded to destroy it, recreate it and then restore the data via Partimage. No problems.
In the era of 30 to 120+ GB HD's I do not have the time or patience to wait for DD to back up non-existant data unless it's for a serious (law enforcement is involved) situation.
Someone else mentioned making a boot floppy. Bah! I'll make a Knoppix ISO and hit knoppix 2 at the boot options screen if I don't want the pretty GUI but I do want most every tool I could possibly have a need for vs. the limited functionality boot floppy.
I agree. SSHing in to my Linux box is a hell of a lot easier and more secure than messing around with a Windows remote desktop app. Cheaper, too.
I didn't know about bittornado. A quick apt-cache search and I found it, then installed it. Thanks for making a few more users aware!
I'm getting about 18-20KB/sec from Microsoft and 15-20KB/sec from the Torrent. I wish MS made it easy to know what the MD5 hash for the file should be.
This is a ridiculous article. At the very least, it's a poor headline.
So, after reading the article (!), I have concluded:
- RSF says Yahoo is bad because they filter search results - in order to get their foot in the door of a 1 billion-person country.
- RSF says Google COULD go bad because they just recently partnered with a company that does currently filter results.
- RSF says, IMO grudgingly, Google is NOT CURRENTLY being bad - they display all results and do not filter.
- RSF notes Google has been banned in the past (for a week) for not filtering results.
RSF, heed this wake-up call: first of all, one billion people represent a shitload of money. Companies exist to make money. Google has, LUCKY FOR YOU, made money and NOT been Evil China's Favorite Search Engine.
Second of all, Google's past actions mean nothing? Perhaps they'll use their stake in Baidu to force them to not filter? That seems just as likely a conclusion, based on the past, as assuming that by acquiring a stake in another company means that they themselves will suddenly change tack and start filtering their results. Which you admit they haven't done.
I normally respect organisations like RSF but jesus harold christ they're really grasping at straws here. I wish all companies operated as ethically as Google does. Which is not to say Google is perfect or a paragon of virtue - merely that they appear to be better than their competitors.
Although I grew up on an Atari ST520, later upgraded to a 1040 (eleet) a Packard Bell-produced P60 with 8MB of RAM and a 420MB HD was my first computer, obtained in late 1993. Windows 3.11. Lotta fond memories, even if some of them involve a lot of cursing and head-scratching, most at Windows. Occasionally some weird piece of proprietary Packard Bell technology would rear its head but on the whole it wasn't too bad of a computer.
That computer was eventually donated to FreeGeek - I still have the Atari, though.
I used to think this line of thought - "f-it, just switch them." wouldn't work. So, I took a baby step and when my brother bought a new computer, I told him "No IE. You get Mozilla. Tabbed browsing and good cookie control, so people can't track you."
He's fine with it. Of course, he's only 25 and open to new things.
As a fellow Portlander, don't group me in your "we". I don't firebomb anything - that's just stupid, especially when you do a crappy job of it.
Either people will walk the talk and continue going to their favorite local place (Stumptown!) or they will go to Starbucks like the corporate-lovin', bad-coffee-swillin' ignorant masses that they are.
Question/comment: Because some people really seem to prefer corporate-style coffee, what makes you think they'd go to the local places anyway? Of course, there are a lot of people that are on the fence (myself included) who don't really give a shit - their preference is the local place, perhaps, but when you need a cup and you're in a hurry or whatever, Starbucks will do.
PS: Despite the fact that Stumptown makes the best coffee, fuck it - give me a cup of Irish Breakfast or Prince of Wales if I can find it.
I have mod points and really wanted to moderate in this article but there's no way I can't reply to this.
...then you are NOT a "hacker".
...Just drive away. Go a half-dozen blocks. Try again. Eventually, if you aren't a complete idiot yet you keep tripping alarms, some noisy or observant person might spot you idling in your car and note the make/model/colour/lic. plate. Otherwise, the police or feds are going to have to shut down a large-block radius and search every car and every person with a laptop-sized bag or bigger and hope that the suspect was too stupid to simply stash the laptop somewhere convenient. Or, if you're a real badass, just get some funding from one of those naughty terrorist organisations and get a bunch of $200 laptops, cheap cards, cheap antennas and good batteries. If you think you're really going to be caught, chuck it in a trash can and walk away.
...There will be no cameras, because you are not sitting at a traffic light or in a very confining street. Think about it. Which car is the camera going to take a picture of?
:P Wanna do some "anonymous" but not terribly high-volume spam (bandwidth limitations of home users)? Wireless. Wanna harass some other internet user? Wireless.
First of all, this is a rest stop. You will stay there for an extra five to 10 minutes, tops, to check for really important emails or weather info. And that's if you're really lax with your schedule. When I'm going on a road trip long enough to warrant a stop at a Rest Stop it's about long enough to run into the bathroom and walk around for about 1-2 minutes. Then back on the road - daylight's burnin'.
As for people realizing they can be anonymous... Ha! If you are a "hacker" and haven't figured out that being easily or quickly tracked down is a thing of the past
Right now I can take my gear (laptop, good 200mw Senao wifi card, good omni roofmount/cantenna, DC-to-AC converter) and get access virtually anywhere I want. Portland, OR is a very unwired city. If I want to try to break into some web site or do something naughty, I'll wardrive for five minutes, find an open-looking AP with a good parking spot and test it out. Usually internet access can be had with absolutely NO trickery (ie: you get a DHCP-assigned IP just by asking, along with proper DNS stuff and all that) 4 outta 5 times.
If you think you might have got someone's interest/are being "traced"/someone's going to the physical address of the owner of that IP
Lastly
I love WiFi, but if you're a bad hacker type, the world is currently your oyster. Wanna release a virus? Do it wirelessly - but be sure your code is anonymous, too.
If you keep it up long enough you'll probably get sloppy and get caught. For some limited duration/scope activities, though, it's very, very difficult to get caught.
I know what I read in the article, which was written in 1977. When did you say you worked in an LCC? I'm guessing it wasn't in the mid 70's and that's when these issues were prevalent. I never said in 2004 LCC's were unsecure places.
...and read the article at least once. It's a long one so I know it's extra hard for the slashdot crowd. :P
I suggest that you re-read my comment
That seems to be the concensus at this point. People have repeatedly pointed out that the *physical* security was VERY VERY STRICT. Just because the password, a deterrant that top-level people thought was VERY VERY necessary was completely missing ...oh, that's fine. They still have keys and ummm other stuff, right?
RTFA. Blair and Brewer point out that, at the time, the military wanted to improve their public relations and would give TOURS of LCC's! B&B repeatedly point out that virtually anyone who asked could get access! The physical security was crap and the codes weren't in place. IE, any moderately funded and motivated terrorist group could have had a field day if they'd know about this severe weakness.
"Four individuals (two persons in each of two separate LCCs in the same squadron) acting in concert could succeed in mechanically launching one or more missiles." In seconds. Not minutes or hours.
"[...] annually thousands of visitors holding no clearance whatsoever were permitted access to operational LCCs."
"Located in each LCC are two launch keys, one for each member of the crew, and the codes needed to authenticate presidential launch directives. Only the launch keys, not the codes, are physical prerequisites for generating valid launch commands, the purpose of the codes being exclusively that of authenticating an execution directive."
B&B make it sound as if you happened to be on a tour and decided to overpower the minimal security force (two crew members + a couple of guards at best (isolated locations, remember?) then it's good to go - you already know the launch codes because it's always all zero's. Or, even worse:
"Technically, crew members can launch a nuclear attack with or without approval from higher authority. Unless PAL or its equivalent forecloses this option, as many as 50 missiles could be illicitly fired. Moreover, unless adequate precautions were instituted, an even more drastic option would be available. Crew members could conspire in the formatting and transmittal of strategic strike directives, deceiving the full contingent of Strategic Air Command (SAC) LCCs, as well as higher authorities, into reacting to a spurious launch directive as if it were valid and authentic. Or they could render the U.S. strategic force virtually impotent by formatting and transmitting messages invalidating the active inventory of presidential execution codes. Finally, crew members could aid accomplices in stealing thermonuclear warheads from missiles on active alert."
Keep in mind that Blair was working in an LCC as a crew member in the mid-70's. He was obviously in a unique position (which virtually none of us were or are) to write this paper. His direct observation on how to subvert the access/security controls on the ICBM's trump anyone else's estimate on what might or might not happen. His letters and paper in 1977 are basically what got those locks activated in... 1977.
It is especially hypocritical that the majority of the Slashdot comments were fine with this poor use of a password mechanism. In your own place of business you most likely would NEVER allow this to happen and you just run some servers - as opposed to ICBM's capable turning your city into a big kitty litter box. Don't defend the actions of those in charge in the 60's and 70's. They were flat out wrong and frankly should have been thrown in military prison for such a massive security breach.
That's an extremely good idea - I'd never thought of that before. The book that the judge throws at you would be significantly less thick, that's for sure. A good thing, really. Old laws that don't apply (or shouldn't) could just get not renewed. Excellent.
Ha! Have you ever read the episode synopses at snpp.com? The nit-picky comments and bullshit are usually 2/3rds or 3/4ths of the synopsis.
:P
Anyway, didn't mean to jump down your throat. It just annoys me, all this pointless Simpsons talk.
Not to be an ass, but don't be stupid.
Portland, OR
I can tell you that even the "mountains" are in the right "spot" - the west side of Portland has some small hills that top out around, oh, I dunno, 500 feet or so. The Cascades are a bit further out west (60 miles).
The point is truly that Springfield, NT *could* be virtually anywhere. Obviously, The Simpsons' Springfield borrows from multiple cities, some of which are completely fictional. The attempt to point to a city and definitively say "This is THE city that Springfield is based upon" is a pointless and impossible one.
http://wiki.personaltelco.net/index.cgi?Node172
...I count myself as being financially ahead in that respect.
:)
I took an old Compaq laptop (p2/333, 196MB RAM, 6GB HD) that I got for $50 from a company sale. Added a Senao ($80) 200mw wifi card with external antenna connections. I'm currently using a 5.5 dBi omni ($20) with plans to upgrade to a 12 dBi roof-mount.
Additional security has been provided by the already-in-place Cisco 1900 Catalyst switch. VLAN2, which is what my AP & main linux-based server are on - can not talk to VLAN1, which is what the rest of the home network is on.
My total cost, to date, has been $150. I already had loads of single-height NICs laying around, otherwise that would have been another $10-20. Not much more than what an AP cost 1-2 years ago. However, the differences are:
- My AP has better range than a commerically-built AP because it has a better card and better antenna. I can quite easily and cheaply ($100) purchase a 25 dBi parabolic grid antenna and blast my signal 10-15 miles away over a mostly-unobstructed surface. Your purchased product can not do this. A 12 dBi omni will work with a decent antenna on the other end through four blocks of trees and houses. I know because a fellow member of Portland's Personal Telco Project and a friend of mine are doing just that. The friend uses a Linksys WAP-11 (I think, or is it the WET-11?) with the rubber duckie antenna + a half-moon reflector grid behind the antenna for an extra boost.
- I have more control over my AP than probably an AP that can be purchased for under $200. Actually, I probably have more control over my AP than any AP you can purchase, period. It's Linux on a computer, duh.
Of course, my time has value but, since I learned a lot about wifi and debian during the course of the project
A commerically-built AP has many "advantages" over mine in that you can buy one right now and have it set up in 30 minutes or less. If you want simple wifi in your house, that's all you need to do - that's all 99.99% of people do.
Of course, 2/3rds of those people don't use WAP encryption or any sort of access-blocking methods. That just makes wardriving and internet-access-while-traveling that much more enjoyable.
When one builds an AP using Linux, one tends to be a LOT more aware of security risks and how to mitigate them. While I don't use WAP or any means of hiding/encrypting the data at a low network level I do encourage my wireless users to use SSH and tunnel the important stuff (email is the big one).
"Ummm yeahhhh... if you could just do that..."
Faust7 is right about this one. Frankly, OCR is ok, but not great - on nice text on book-or-better paper. Handwritten notes? With equations? No. Not unless your profs have some damn fine handwriting and we all know that that is absolutely not the case.
My advice is the same as Faust7's with these additions: spend some of that money on a really nice keyboard, wrist-rest and/or maybe a nice monitor. You are going to be needing all three. If there are any left over funds, get some really nice tea. I suggest Twinnings English Breakfast or Prince of Wales, if you're going to go bagged.
$3 is with a *healthy* profit margin. And that's probably also from virgin oil. When you collect the oil yourself (or have a co-op do it for you) ...the oil is free. You need to heat the used oil up so you can filter it, but we're not talking about anything fancy here - just a fine mesh filter after you've filtered all the big chunks out.
B20 is "ok". There's no reason not to use B100, however - unless you are in a COLD environment. Then maybe a 50/50 mix or just put in some cold-weather treatment/mixture with your biodiesel.
You're right, you are wrong.
.50/gallon. Still cheaper than regular diesel which is currently at $2.20-2.25/gal around here.
B100 = 100% Biodiesel
Let's do the numbers - according to the EPA (it's a PDF):
- B100 = 50% lower carbon monoxide emissions.
- B100 = 70% reduction in particulate emissions. Particulate emissions is a fancy way of saying "the stuff that causes respitory ailments, IE asthma and lung cancer."
- B100 = 40% reduction in Total HydroCarbon emissions. THC (not the good kind) is one of the causes global warming. Keep in mind that this carbon was NOT pulled out from deep in the ground and re-introduced into the carbon cycle. It came from plants that were recently living. Net addition to the carbon cycle = zero. Can't say that with regular diesel, created from oil/carbon that has been out of the cycle for millions of years.
- B100 = 100% reduction in sulfate emissions. Sulfate is used to lubricate parts. Biodiesel is naturally lubricating.
So what's the drawback? Here it is:
- B100 = 9% increase in nitrous oxide emissions. This is not a good one.
NOx is one of the three nasties that make up smog. The other two are carbon monoxide and THC. You can read up more about NOx emissions here: http://www.serconline.org/biodiesel/fact.html
Basically, while NOx increases are bad it's offset by the drastic decreases of carbon monoxide and THC. And, good news, they're working on methods to reduce NOx emissions. We may see some reductions in 2005-2007 when new equipment will start showing up on diesel in order to comply with a law set to take effect in 2007. That law basically says that regular diesel needs to be much, much cleaner - same goes for the new vehicles that will run diesel.
Other drawbacks? Well, commercially available biodiesel is VERY hard to find. Portland, OR is a fairly progressive city. We have only a few B20 pumps and only one or two major suppliers of B100. Co-ops will help make up the short-term unavailability to those in the know - but it would be better if many stations carried it right at the pump.
To make matters worse, most B100 suppliers charge more for B100 than for diesel. There's no reason to, especially when you consider that a co-op like the one I'm involved in can make B100 for as little as $1.00-1.50/gal. We leave it up to our buyers to acquire PUC cards - which means they're sort of like truckers, paying road taxes quarterly. Makes it easier on the co-op to sell to people who won't be using the fuel in on-road vehicles. Road taxes account for about another
Another drawback: can you tell me how many car (not truck) manufacturers currently produce a diesel that's sold in the US? I can: VW and Mercedes. The cheapest new diesel from VW will set you back approximately $17,775 according to the Kelly Blue Book site.
- The VW Golf TDI (diesel) manual is $17,775.
- The VW Golf TDI (diesel) auto is $18,850.
- The VW Golf GL 4-cyl (gas) manual is $15,183.
- The VW Golf GL 4-cyl (gas) auto is $16,702.
So, you're going to pay about $2,500 or more for your brand spankin' new diesel car. Since the gas milage rocks so much, however, you'll make that back if you keep the car for 6-7 years according to the EPA: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
That's about it for the drawbacks. So why isn't it more popular, you ask? Well, who drives a diesel car - how many diesel owners do you know, for that matter? Can you count them all on one hand? Now, are *any* of them environmentally aware? To the point where they'd consider running a "new" fuel that they're uneducated or unsure about?
Unmodified engines. The only modifications one would need to make:
* If your diesel vehicle is 10 years or older you will eventually need to swap out the natural rubber fuel lines for synthetic ones. Less than $20 in parts.
* If you've been running diesel for awhile now and are switching to 100% biodiesel you will probably need to change your fuel filter after a tank or two. B100 cleans your fuel tank, lines, etc. All that gets filtered.
Biodiesel can be made from a variety of oils (used or new) + methanol or ethanol + lye + heat (basically). It can be for as little as $1/gallon, if you're buying in bulk and getting your used oil for free. Most places will give their oil away for free since they normally have to pay someone to haul it away for them.
Sure, there are drawbacks. The positives outweigh the negatives, though.
I'm involved with the GoBiodiesel Cooperative in Portland, OR.
Frankly if I'm going to have to pay as much (or more) than the new physical CD costs, well, f-it. I'll go buy the CD. I'll have the actual media then and also be able to rip it and distribute it to as many computers as I wish.
...and RIAA secretly knows this... might they be simply trying to pressure Apple into raising their prices in order to have them eventually fail the iTunes business?
Either RIAA is absolutely blinded by greed (a distinct possibility) or they might just be blinded by their lust for power/control. Consider this: if people think like I do and don't want to pay as much for the restricted-ethereal-copy as they do for the free-as-a-bird physical media
At that point the RIAA could point to iTunes and say, "Hey, people and Congress, the people don't want legal stuff! Let us make evil non redbook-standard CD's that are laden with DRM! Protect our braindead ancient way of doing business!"
I recently bought two (my first two) songs on iTunes and enjoyed the experience. But it's pushing it to ask me to spend 10-12 right now to get all the files that made up the original CD. If it goes up to $14-17, not a chance. I'll buy a used CD or I'll get it from Gnutella or I'll just listen to the damn radio. $.99/song is the LIMIT, not the start. Otherwise, I want the physical media and the dead tree art.
- The quality of the glass. Apparently some prosumers care about this, see Canon's recent PowerShot Pro1 offering. Almost all DSLR owners at the very least *are aware* that glass makes a huge difference - even if they can't afford the best.
- The quality of the body and mechanicals. No point in getting a nice digicam or DSLR when it's going to break in six months/5,000 images.
- The camera's firmware. Canon Digital Rebel owners know what I'm talking about. While firmware won't make or break a camera it CAN have a big impact. If the camera doesn't let you do what you need to do, all the glass and megapixels won't mean poop.
- Many others have mentioned this: egronomics. If you're spending time trying to find the button that lets you do what you need to do then you've missed the shot.
- Control over the camera. I think this is actually a bigger deal than megapixels or glass. If you don't have the control over the camera that you need, then everything else doesn't matter. This is more of a prosumer concern than a "I just wanna take some pictures"-consumer. However, it does matter. That's why SLR's are popular - people want control.
Funny, but in my friend's case, quite true. The Personal Telco Project in Portland, OR runs several hundred nodes in the metro area. Perhaps 20-25 are high-profile nodes, in businesses.
However, many are in residential neighborhoods. My friend couldn't get DSL at his house, but four block away his PTP-friendly neighbor already had it. With the aid of a Linksys WET-11 and WAP-11 plus a bit of a boost to the WET-11's antenna (I think) via a half-moon reflector, he manages to get access to the internet - FOUR blocks away. 802.11b + good equipment = distance, baby.
Running a similar node in a secure (!) fashion is not necessarily that difficult. You can check out my notes on the node-on-a-laptop I did here: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/Node172