So as long as I avoid traditional motors I can be as unsafe as I want, good to know.
How does meeting safety standards have anything to do with your method of propulsion?
I ask because I'm curious about OTHER vehicles that are "driven on public roads", also there are bicycles that have been modified to be electrically or motor-assisted.
And a 40lb downhill racing bike with a 180lb rider will cause more damage, is more dangerous, more difficult to control, and much much faster than a mechanized wheelchair so I fail to see how making a distinction between human and engine-powered vehicles is justified when both are using the same roads.
Anything else?
Wow, you really need to upgrade your computer.
Oh and my father still has AND uses a slide rule, and he's probably faster with it than you are with a calculator so quit being a dick.
Yeah because a simulator is just like driving down a country road in the fall breeze being able to smell the woods and see wildlife and the scenery.
And what on earth are you talking about stress-inducing. Driving to me is stress-relieving, what are you afraid of vehicles or something?
To date, in 20 years of driving, over 400k miles, my inferior driving skills have caused exactly $0 in damage. Driving safely isn't difficult in the least if you actually take driving seriously.
These rules you describe, they all revolve around you assuming that I'm going to behave in a particular fashion, and you being encouraged to believe that you have the right to expect and demand that I do.
Tell me, what assumptions are you making regarding using a round-a-bout and what behavior should you expect others to use when in them?
You are proposing the same need for rules and regulations with a different form of intersection.
Two people arrive at a 4-way stop at right angles to each other. Who has the right of way? Regulation: The person to your right.
Solution: Use a roundabout instead of a 4-way stop.
Yes because replacing every single 4 way intersection in a residential neighborhood would be so simple, or in a city. EVERY intersection within 6 blocks of me is a 4 way stop, in at congested, 200+ year old city with small houses and tiny streets. PREDATING automobiles. I find your solution laughable and your assertation regarding engineering proposterous given that the road was developed before the automobile.
For reviews in the USA, does this not go against the spirit of the first amendment (freedom of the press) even if not the letter of it?
That was what I was wondering, how the hell can he get reviews pulled???
What total bullshit is that?
Isn't that part of the purpose of things like fair use?
I would love to see a legal experts take on this because it sounds like its way over the line. I'd love to see all the reviews just re-written without directly referencing Lucas's latest steaming pile./Han shot first
I can't stand the idea of robot cars. I ENJOY driving. I loathe being cargo, I don't even like being a passanger for more than a few minutes. And what about motorcycles?
(2) "Designers" who can't code have absolutely no business "working" in software. If you think you really know how an interface should work and look, then learn to code it. Otherwise, you're just a critic of the kind that the NYT doesn't hire.
Oh? I should like to counter that with coders who have piss-poor worthless design skills have no business developing apps for user interaction. By all means continue to develop with no thought to your user base, but you won't get many fans. Stick to writing stuff the users don't need to interact with.
That email belongs to the company, not you. As someone who accumulates 90% of his work stress from dealing with employee email usage atrocities (please don't email an mp3 mix cd image to 150 of your closest friends from your workstation, kthx), let me tell you what's wrong with your plan.
Its company property, governed by the policy in place for whatever reason, feel free to violate the policy if you don't want your job.
Not to mention what will happen if it comes to light that you are violating policy during a discovery proceedure, especially if it comes to light because you brilliantly decided to forward critical confidential company correspondence to somewhere like a Gmail account.
Brilliant. Really. Good luck finding a job after that.
I don't bother wasting my time with Linux Live CDs when I need to deal with Windows boxes.
Just roll yourself a BartPE disk, better for dealing with Windows since its designed for it.
Easy enough to do registry editing or access drives etc, and even a way to easily change passwords or run as the SYSTEM account (root for Windows) with Dreampack.
This is a a pretty good synopsis of basic NAT vulnerabilities:
Busting the NAT Myth By Sig Fidyke, Senior Product Manager, and Scott Pinzon, LiveSecurity Lead Editor, WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.
Have you ever settled down to dinner, only to be interrupted by unsolicited telemarketing phone calls? It makes you glad that at work, your business has a main number other than your desk phone. If necessary, you can tell the company receptionist, "Unless my boss or my spouse calls, don't forward any calls to me." Then if telemarketers call the main number, looking for you, the receptionist terminates their call without bothering you. In fact, if you wanted, you could keep your desk phone number completely private so that no one knew it except fellow employees and close family members.
However, if you achieved that ideal, would you then say, "My private phone number makes me safe in all regards. Now we can fire the company's security guards and leave the doors unlocked"? Foolish, right? Yet for some reason, many people follow that very logic when concluding that a NAT device is a firewall. This article debunks the myth that a NAT device is "good enough" security, and explains why you're better off using a real firewall to protect your network.
NAT Attacks Network Address Translation, or NAT, works roughly like the receptionist in our opening illustration. It hides your private, or unregistered, network addresses from the public. When packets leave your network, heading for the wild Internet, a NAT device replaces all private IP source addresses with one public address (usually its own). Since the NAT box advertises its own address to the world as the source address, all replies from the wild Internet return to the NAT device, analogous to the way phone calls to everyone at your company might first come to a main phone number. And just as the receptionist answering the main number can redirect incoming phone calls to the desired individual, NAT checks an internal table to redirect replies to the appropriate computer inside the network. If an attacker initiates a connection to your network through some oddball port, like 31337, the NAT box would check its table and think, "Gee, no one inside this network requested information on port 31337. Now I don't know who to send this packet to." Typically, it then drops the packet. So, in this sense, NAT-only devices do provide a modicum of security. (The rest of this article assumes you understand basic NAT, so if the concept is new to you, before continuing you might want to read "Using Network Address Translation" and "How and When to Use 1:1 NAT.")
Since NAT is designed to do the best it can to allow traffic in, any security benefits it provides are mere side-effects. Hackers have developed attacks specifically for NAT devices, such as the following.
Exploiting open ports. For port-based NAT, once a NAT device opens a port by putting it in the NAT table, all traffic destined to that port is allowed through to the local computer identified in the table. NAT substitutes unusual ports for well-known ports, but usually derives its substitute port numbers from a standard range. Hackers can persistently keep guessing at which ports NAT has opened until they get through. Since they use automated programs to do this, the hacker doesn't have to be overly persistent or lucky -- he just tries a lot of addresses until something breaks.
Taking the DMZ server. Some NAT devices can be configured so that packets not matching anything in the NAT table are sent to a specified computer, rather than discarded. This gives the administrator a chance to ensure that good traffic is not lost, and to allow a program to work that won't work through NAT. But it's horrible from a security perspective. It means the NAT device sends everything through. Once a hacker gets control of the one computer where everything
First off, firewalls don't belong on systems, they belong on networks, so (after a re-read) I agree with that point.
But what he's saying is he doesn't need a firewall on his system because he's sitting behind NAT, and making the assumption that NAT is an effective firewall. NAT is NOT a true firewall! It is at best a passive protection that can be overcome.
If NAT were a truly effective firewall there wouldn't be a market for any of the other high-end gear out there.
Considering you don't know the difference between a NAT router and a true hardware firewall, I think maybe you should listen to the advice.
Spyware and viruses/trojans are often a payload of network aware worms which don't need you to do anything but make your machine available to the Internet or any other unsecured network to allow them to infect you if your system has an exploitable vulnerability.
You don't really need the resource hogging crap (like Norton 360 etc) if you have a REAL UTP firewall device, but you go on and keep rocking that Linksys like its the great firewall of China and see how far that gets you.
That said, I will say if you are _very_ careful you can minimize your exposure potential, but if the means are available, why not take the measures?
Slashdot Mirror
So as long as I avoid traditional motors I can be as unsafe as I want, good to know. How does meeting safety standards have anything to do with your method of propulsion?
Fixies are illegal?
I ask because I'm curious about OTHER vehicles that are "driven on public roads", also there are bicycles that have been modified to be electrically or motor-assisted. And a 40lb downhill racing bike with a 180lb rider will cause more damage, is more dangerous, more difficult to control, and much much faster than a mechanized wheelchair so I fail to see how making a distinction between human and engine-powered vehicles is justified when both are using the same roads. Anything else?
Do we really need them? Human population has doubled in 40 years, do we REALLY need to save anyone?
Wow, you really need to upgrade your computer. Oh and my father still has AND uses a slide rule, and he's probably faster with it than you are with a calculator so quit being a dick.
Yeah because a simulator is just like driving down a country road in the fall breeze being able to smell the woods and see wildlife and the scenery. And what on earth are you talking about stress-inducing. Driving to me is stress-relieving, what are you afraid of vehicles or something?
To date, in 20 years of driving, over 400k miles, my inferior driving skills have caused exactly $0 in damage. Driving safely isn't difficult in the least if you actually take driving seriously.
Wow, thats actually kindof depressing. What about bicycles?
The human population has doubled in 40 years, we could survive the loss.
These rules you describe, they all revolve around you assuming that I'm going to behave in a particular fashion, and you being encouraged to believe that you have the right to expect and demand that I do.
Tell me, what assumptions are you making regarding using a round-a-bout and what behavior should you expect others to use when in them? You are proposing the same need for rules and regulations with a different form of intersection.
Two people arrive at a 4-way stop at right angles to each other. Who has the right of way? Regulation: The person to your right. Solution: Use a roundabout instead of a 4-way stop.
Yes because replacing every single 4 way intersection in a residential neighborhood would be so simple, or in a city. EVERY intersection within 6 blocks of me is a 4 way stop, in at congested, 200+ year old city with small houses and tiny streets. PREDATING automobiles. I find your solution laughable and your assertation regarding engineering proposterous given that the road was developed before the automobile.
Motorized wheelchairs are allowed on the roads, at least the residential streets around here, I don't see much difference.
For reviews in the USA, does this not go against the spirit of the first amendment (freedom of the press) even if not the letter of it?
That was what I was wondering, how the hell can he get reviews pulled???
What total bullshit is that?
Isn't that part of the purpose of things like fair use?
I would love to see a legal experts take on this because it sounds like its way over the line. I'd love to see all the reviews just re-written without directly referencing Lucas's latest steaming pile. /Han shot first
I can't stand the idea of robot cars. I ENJOY driving. I loathe being cargo, I don't even like being a passanger for more than a few minutes. And what about motorcycles?
We designers have a mantra for that, usually attributed to Henry Ford:
"If I'd asked my customers what they wanted, they would have said a faster horse."
You may like to ponder that in the light of that statement you made.
Didn't Henry Ford also say: "They can have any color they want as long as its black"?
(2) "Designers" who can't code have absolutely no business "working" in software. If you think you really know how an interface should work and look, then learn to code it. Otherwise, you're just a critic of the kind that the NYT doesn't hire.
Oh? I should like to counter that with coders who have piss-poor worthless design skills have no business developing apps for user interaction. By all means continue to develop with no thought to your user base, but you won't get many fans. Stick to writing stuff the users don't need to interact with.
In God We Trust
All Others Pay Cash
You might want to know about your surgeon's Parkinsons.
Theft of internal company communications (forwarding company email to your Gmail account) can be.
That email belongs to the company, not you. As someone who accumulates 90% of his work stress from dealing with employee email usage atrocities (please don't email an mp3 mix cd image to 150 of your closest friends from your workstation, kthx), let me tell you what's wrong with your plan.
Its company property, governed by the policy in place for whatever reason, feel free to violate the policy if you don't want your job.
Not to mention what will happen if it comes to light that you are violating policy during a discovery proceedure, especially if it comes to light because you brilliantly decided to forward critical confidential company correspondence to somewhere like a Gmail account.
Brilliant. Really. Good luck finding a job after that.
I don't bother wasting my time with Linux Live CDs when I need to deal with Windows boxes.
Just roll yourself a BartPE disk, better for dealing with Windows since its designed for it.
Easy enough to do registry editing or access drives etc, and even a way to easily change passwords or run as the SYSTEM account (root for Windows) with Dreampack.
This is a a pretty good synopsis of basic NAT vulnerabilities:
Busting the NAT Myth
By Sig Fidyke, Senior Product Manager, and Scott Pinzon, LiveSecurity
Lead Editor, WatchGuard Technologies, Inc.
Have you ever settled down to dinner, only to be interrupted by
unsolicited telemarketing phone calls? It makes you glad that at work,
your business has a main number other than your desk phone. If necessary,
you can tell the company receptionist, "Unless my boss or my spouse
calls, don't forward any calls to me." Then if telemarketers call the
main number, looking for you, the receptionist terminates their call
without bothering you. In fact, if you wanted, you could keep your desk
phone number completely private so that no one knew it except fellow
employees and close family members.
However, if you achieved that ideal, would you then say, "My private
phone number makes me safe in all regards. Now we can fire the company's
security guards and leave the doors unlocked"? Foolish, right? Yet for
some reason, many people follow that very logic when concluding that a
NAT device is a firewall. This article debunks the myth that a NAT device
is "good enough" security, and explains why you're better off using a
real firewall to protect your network.
NAT Attacks
Network Address Translation, or NAT, works roughly like the receptionist
in our opening illustration. It hides your private, or unregistered,
network addresses from the public. When packets leave your network,
heading for the wild Internet, a NAT device replaces all private IP
source addresses with one public address (usually its own). Since the NAT
box advertises its own address to the world as the source address, all
replies from the wild Internet return to the NAT device, analogous to the
way phone calls to everyone at your company might first come to a main
phone number. And just as the receptionist answering the main number can
redirect incoming phone calls to the desired individual, NAT checks an
internal table to redirect replies to the appropriate computer inside the
network. If an attacker initiates a connection to your network through
some oddball port, like 31337, the NAT box would check its table and
think, "Gee, no one inside this network requested information on port
31337. Now I don't know who to send this packet to." Typically, it then
drops the packet. So, in this sense, NAT-only devices do provide a
modicum of security. (The rest of this article assumes you understand
basic NAT, so if the concept is new to you, before continuing you might
want to read "Using Network Address Translation" and "How and When to Use
1:1 NAT.")
Since NAT is designed to do the best it can to allow traffic in, any
security benefits it provides are mere side-effects. Hackers have
developed attacks specifically for NAT devices, such as the following.
Exploiting open ports. For port-based NAT, once a NAT device opens a port
by putting it in the NAT table, all traffic destined to that port is
allowed through to the local computer identified in the table. NAT
substitutes unusual ports for well-known ports, but usually derives its
substitute port numbers from a standard range. Hackers can persistently
keep guessing at which ports NAT has opened until they get through. Since
they use automated programs to do this, the hacker doesn't have to be
overly persistent or lucky -- he just tries a lot of addresses until
something breaks.
Taking the DMZ server. Some NAT devices can be configured so that packets
not matching anything in the NAT table are sent to a specified computer,
rather than discarded. This gives the administrator a chance to ensure
that good traffic is not lost, and to allow a program to work that won't
work through NAT. But it's horrible from a security perspective. It means
the NAT device sends everything through. Once a hacker gets control of
the one computer where everything
You might also want to re-read what he was saying because:
"I have a NAT router (hardware firewall)."
sounds pretty much like he's stating they are the same thing, even if he's only trying to point out the lack of need for an on-system firewall.
First off, firewalls don't belong on systems, they belong on networks, so (after a re-read) I agree with that point.
But what he's saying is he doesn't need a firewall on his system because he's sitting behind NAT, and making the assumption that NAT is an effective firewall. NAT is NOT a true firewall! It is at best a passive protection that can be overcome.
If NAT were a truly effective firewall there wouldn't be a market for any of the other high-end gear out there.
Considering you don't know the difference between a NAT router and a true hardware firewall, I think maybe you should listen to the advice.
Spyware and viruses/trojans are often a payload of network aware worms which don't need you to do anything but make your machine available to the Internet or any other unsecured network to allow them to infect you if your system has an exploitable vulnerability.
You don't really need the resource hogging crap (like Norton 360 etc) if you have a REAL UTP firewall device, but you go on and keep rocking that Linksys like its the great firewall of China and see how far that gets you.
That said, I will say if you are _very_ careful you can minimize your exposure potential, but if the means are available, why not take the measures?