they don't ask for your social security #, they ask for the last 4 digits. They also don't ask for mother's maiden name
Ever had a bank account? Or a credit card? The last 4 digits of your social security number is often what the bank uses (in conjunction with mother's maiden name) to verify who you are on the phone.
That's because the last 4 digits of your SSN are guaranteed to be unique. The first 5 digits can easily be determined based on where and when you were born. Given the last 4, you're well on your way to stealing someones identity.
True, it doesn't ask for mother's maiden name - I think that was humor/sarcasm. I don't think anyone would have a problem if it just asked for postal address - that's public information for about 90% of the population. But $20 is not enough to convince me I should give some folks I don't know the last four digits of my social security number.
Of course, if places would stop using your SSN like a citizen ID number, we wouldn't have as much of a problem, but that's a different issue...
This could be a nail in the coffin of Sirius and XM radio.
Um, how? I was under the impression that satellite radio offered audio-only programming.
First of all, most people who have TVs in vehicles have them for either a DVD player or a VCR. Sticking a movie in is going to keep the kids quiet for at least 90 minutes. Getting satellite TV only going to keep them quiet for 30 minutes at a time and encourage channel-surfing, which will drive the parents nuts.
Satellite radio offers the same audio channels and programming coast-to-coast; fewer (or zero) commercials, and entertainment you can enjoy without having to take your eyes off the road.
Don't get me wrong - I think satellite radio will crash and burn, but DirecTV for vehicles certainly won't be the death of it...
Why do so many/.ers get their panties in a twist over this issue? Site $foo doesn't want you to link to them - so the fuck what? Were you _really_ going to link to them anyway? Really? It seems like people go out of their way to find sites with restrictive linking policies, just so they can get everyone all steamed up about it.
I know this whole post sounds like a troll, but really, I'm curious - how often have you desperately wanted to link to a site, yet found out you couldn't because of restrictive linking policies.
Also, here's another serious question. Say I publish a cool Lego Mindstorm project on my website, with a bunch of JPEGs. I'm hosted via a cable modem, so if I exceed a certain amount of bandwidth, I'm SOL and have to pay more money. Some guy finds my website, and submits it to Slashdot. Suddenly, my traffic spikes, and I'm over my monthly limit in just 24 hours. Is that fair?
Yes, you can say "You shouldn't have put up the page if you didn't want people to see it", but do you, honestly, every time you put up a website, anticipate that it will be/.ed? No, of course you don't. So now, this huge traffic spike costs me real money. I have two choices: a) Create a linking policy; b) Remove my content. Chances are I'll choose (b), since I know/.ers will thumb their noses at (a). So now, the web has lost some content, and nobody benefits.
You want to say linking policies are stupid? Fine. Want to say they're useless? Fine. That's well within your rights. But what do you propose sites do to combat the/. effect?
Did someone pass a law while I was sleeping: "Thou Shalt Not Read Cryptome"?
Nope. But they certainly did pass a law saying "Thou shalt not commit wire fraud". That's what they're looking for (some guy who is passing himself off as a security specialist and is just stealing people's data), and they think the suspect might have visited one page on cryptome. They only want the logs for that page - they don't give a shit about the rest of the site. Why don't you go read one of the mirrors (or one of the many comments paraphrasing the mirrors) before crying "Big Brother"?
Also, when posting something controversial like this, with headlines that can easily be misinterpreted, the editors should really go make copies of the pages (it's just text - that doesn't require bandwidth) and have them available for viewing so people don't jump to conclusions. Of course, while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.
This idea is "so" lame that I can't help but think we've all been trolled.
Agreed. This hardly smacks of professionalism. Check out these gems from the FAQ page:
Won't [the wall] fill up with hot air?
They have yet to build a wall that is air tight, anyone who has ever worked in construction will tell you that there are probably 50 different places air flows into your walls.
They of course don't talk about 50 places where air flows OUT of your walls. Plus, they fail to address the questionable legality (re: building codes) of this "product".
Won't bugs get into my computer from the wall?
Your system fan runs at anywhere from 2500rpm to 4500rpm and is putting out about 35cfm of air. If bugs actually make it to the system fan, the blades will chop them to pieces.. muuuhaaahaaa
Right.... 'Cause there are no bugs that _walk_ instead of fly, and they certainly couldn't crawl up the tube. Oh, and of course, you'll never turn your computer off ever, so there'll never be a time when the fan might be _off_. And what self respecting company would put "muuuhaaahaaa" in a FAQ.
Yeesh. The editors really need to check their facts. Mine's already video enabled.
When I charge it, it displays a nice little video of the battery charge going to low to high, and back again. If that's not high-quality video, then I don't know what is...
As a guy sitting in Canada, who is not allowed to subscribe to Direct TV, we have to pirate it to watch the Sopranos on HBO.
"have to pirate it"? have to? Wow. I didn't think we as a society could sink that low.
You don't _have_ to do anything. You could do the right thing, and not break the law - instead you could write letters to HBO and say "Gosh, we really want to watch your programming, but the Canadian government won't let us". You could write letters to your goverment officials and say "This is terrible - there are 200,000 Canadians prevented from watching this show."
But to say that "We have to break the law, to watch a TV show" is just terrible. Personal convenience is hardly a defense for breaking the law. If you think I'm wrong, try some of these statements and see how far you get:
"I'm sorry Your Honor, but I had to rob that liquor store to make payments on new car."
"I'm sorry Officer, but I had to park in front of the fire hydrant so I could run in to the corner store and by a soda."
"I'm sorry Special Agent Smith, but I had to print that counterfeit money so I could give my kids a higher allowance."
Xerox" and "Kleenex" were diluted because people began to use them to refer to photocopies (mimeographs?)
For the record, photocopy != mimeograph.
Mimeograph machines (aka "ditto machines" in some parts of the country, though really a ditto machine is a hectograph, that uses gelatin) work by pressing special ink through a prepared stencil (often prepared in a typewriter). They were really only useful for typewritten documents. Anyone who went to a public school in the '80s should remember worksheets written up in purple ink that was blurred and not terribly readable. Those were mimeographs.
A photocopier on the other hand works by transfering toner electrostatically to paper, and then using heat to fuse the toner to the paper. (The electrostatic part is why photocopies were once referred to as "photostats").
The photocopier (in electrostatic form) was not invented as a concept until 1938, and the first useful model was produced by Xerox in 1959. Mimeographs, on the other hand, had been around as a concept since the 1870s, and were first mass-produced by A.B.Dick Company of Chicago in the late 1880s.
So really, "a xerox" was never used to refer to mimeographs.
Actually would've been impossible for him to run since that would've been a 3rd term in '52 - and one year before that the 22nd
ammendment was ratified so that truman could run again.
This is correct, however Eisenhower and Truman had this conversation in 1947, when the ammendment had just been proposed. By the end of 1947, less than half of the required number of states had ratified it. They had no way of knowing it would pass. (Though given FDR's 4 terms it seemed likely that it would...)
Who modded this Interesting? -1 Flamebait is more like it.
The poster has no concept of history whatsoever. First, some things to clear up. In the 1948 election, Strom Thurmond was not running as a Republican OR a Democract. He was running as a semi-independent. A group of Southern Democrats, who thought Harry Truman (a democrat) was going too far with his civil rights policies, broke from the Democratic party and formed their own party with their key point being the "right of the States". In practice, the only States' Right they cared about was the right to allow segregation. (These were unofficially known as "Dixiecrats".)
Second, the Democratic Party nominated Eisenhower as a candidate and wanted him to face Truman in the Democratic Primary. Eisenhower (as a national WWII hero) knew that he would win, but declined the nomination. He threw in the towel, and is reported to have discussed this with Truman, saying he (Eisenhower) would decline the nomnation provided Truman did not seek a second term in 1952. We all know the rest of the story - Truman rode around the county, decrying the Republican Congress; the media picked Dewey (Republican) as their favorite; and Truman won by a landslide.
Now, on to your original post. You claim:
the last time that the president and both houses of Congress were republican was then - In the Eisenhower administration.
This was only the case for the first half of the first term of Eisenhower's administration.
The 83rd Congress was Republican, but just barely. (In the senate it was a margin of 1 (with 1 independent), and in the house, a margin of 5 (with several independents))
Do you really think the whole Trent Lott fiasco was because he
"misspoke himself"?
Yes. Lott has a history of misspeaking himself. Regardless of whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you have to agree that Lott is the kind of person that shouldn't be allowed to speak without a teleprompter. Furthermore, Lott did not say "If we'd had segregation in 1948, things would be better.", nor did he say "Strom, if your platform had been carried in '48, we'd all be happy." He merely said that if Thurmond had been president, we wouldn't have had "these problems" today. He didn't say what problems. It's conceiveable he was talking about Korea, for example. If Thurmond had been elected in '48, it's likely that a) We wouldn't have gone into Korea at all; or b) We would have gone in, but Thurmond wouldn't have fired McArthur like Truman did. He could have been talking about anything at all. Fact is, there's no way in hell Thurmond would have even been elected, given the strong Democratic support for civil rights. Second of all, even if he _had_ been elected, there's no way he would have passed any anti-civil rights stuff with the do-nothing 80th Republican Congress, and by the time the 81st Congress rolled around, it was strongly controlled by Democratic advocaters of Civil Rights, which is what allowed Truman to pass the order of de-segregation for the U.S. Armed Forces so quickly.
Also, Lott was 5 or 6 in 1948. How many of you paid attenton to politics when you were 5 or 6? How many of you in college now remember the detailed platforms of the '84 election? I sure don't.
Fact is, whatever Lott's remark meant, it got blown out of proportion. The reason it took 3 days for ANYONE (on either side) to get upset at his remark, is because they had to go back and look at the '48 election, and figure out what the hell platform Thurmond was running on, because nobody remembers. Regardless, he should have known that anything he says as a politician is going to get misinterpreted, and that's why you keep your mouth shut unless your speechwriter and spin doctor are with you.
How do I send my kerb password from my machine to the host? Telnet? Plaintext. Ftp? Plaintext. HTTP? Plaintext...
Not really. Yes, your Kerb password could be compromised if you send it in the clear, but the whole point of Kerberos is that you shouldn't need to. Normally, what you do is get your tickets (using your password) on the local machine, and use those tickets to make secure connections (a trite explanation, but I'm not getting into TGTs here) to hosts using kerberized telnet and kerberized ftp. But no, there's nothing to stop you from typing your password in plaintext except your own brain.
Yes, you are correct, there is no Kerberized HTTP (anymore), but, well, there's SSL and "it seems to work OK".
This seems like overkill to me. Clearly these folks have been paying too much attention to those banner ads that say "DANGER: Your computer has an IP address - attackers could use this to locate your computer and hack it".
Some explain to me again how 802.11b is so much more insecure than a wired, hubbed network? *hears silence* It's not. For 5 years I worked in an environment where we have a hubbed network. In case you don't know, that means any computer on the network can see all packets (assuming the viewer is in promiscuous mode). So what do you do? You use ssh to log in to machines. You use HTTPS for secure web data. You use Kerberos for POP3 authentication, or IMAP/SSL for IMAP authentication. You use PGP to encrypt any e-mail you're worried about. Everything else, you suck it up and deal. I don't really care that the guy down the hall knows I'm reading Slashdot.
It's the same with wireless. You want to send sensitive data? Do it over HTTPS or an IPSec connection, or an SSH tunnel, or copy it using FTP over SSHv2, or Kerberos, or one of the numerous other methods for encrypting data. If you can't use one of these methods, then maybe you want to send your data in some other form (like, dead-tree form, or verbal form, or using semaphore signals, or something). But don't pretend that sending data in clear text over a wired network is somehow better than sending it over a wireless link. (Note: I'm discounting leased pairs/dedicated circuits, since those are prohibitively expensive.) If your data is readable by someone other than you, assume that someone other than you will read it. Assuming anything else is like walking into a bank and yelling "OK, Mr. Bank Teller, I'm going to give you my PIN number - everyone else, just don't listen, ok?"
Besides, Gypsies really aren't a 'race' per se. It's a way of life.
Are you some kind of idiot? The original Gypsies are most definitely a race. The name for that race is "Roma" or "Romani". However, there are few of them left, as they have been persecuted throughout history, especially during the holocaust. (Hitler and his allies killed as many Gypsies as Jews, but it's not politically correct to mention any race except the Jews when talking about the Holocaust. {And, for the record, I'm Jewish, so don't bother accusing me of racism} )
In the '60s and '70s many hippies adopted the "Gypsy lifestyle", some even living in restored caravans, however, the original Gypsies were most definitely a race.
We all know what happens when you try to build free-range animatronic robots. Regardless of their safeguards, they go nuts and kill people. It's all documented in this film. Which, incidentally, is what the Simpsons episode is a parody of.
Damn straight. Those pesky Apple Engineers, using FireWire (IEEE 1394), PCI, USB, Ethernet, ATA/IDE, ATAPI. What were they thinking?? Certainly no other computers use those standards.
*sigh*
If it insults GNU/Linux, it's a troll.
If it insults Apple and is factually incorrect,
it's +5, Funny.
Normally there's no reason to wait for a cashier's check to clear.
Sure there is. It's called counterfeiting. It's a hell of a lot easier to counterfeit a check than cash. Largely because banks don't even look at checks anymore when you deposit them. So you lose, until it comes back as returned and you're overdrawn.
From the headline, I thought that the FBI was attempting to track criminals through the use of banner ads (i.e. use something embedded in the ads to track those who view them).
Amen to that. I was already formulating my "Big Brother strikes again" response, until halfway through the article, I realized that it's no different from the handbills in the Post Office or "America's Most Wanted".
However, if you're suggesting that Slashdot editors create sensationalist headlines, that's hardly something new.
*braces self for loss of Karma due to this comment*
Manufacturing is easiest and cheapest when you can make everything the
exact same way.
Bzzt. Wrong. Yes, this would be true if we were talking about getting your PC engraved with your name on it. However, when an established step in the manufacturing process is simply skipped for certain machines, the extra cost is zero. You're eliminating a step, not adding or changing one.
Furthermore, Dell (and Gateway, and the others) all make a big deal about how your PC is built to order. So if your PC is custom-built in the first place, why should it be difficult to customize...
its just computer makers offering the product that will make them the most money.
Really? So by removing a step from the manufacturing process (imaging a new install onto a hard drive), that would somehow cost them more? I disbelieve.
If you recall, part of the Microsoft settlement with the government was that they cannot adjust prices based on other products that an OEM sells.
'Cause they've definitely stopped doing that. Absolutely. They're 100% on the level. I guess you didn't read the quote from the former Gateway (or Acer, can't remember) CEO who said that MS continued to do this even AFTER the settlement.
its time to quit bitching and understand that the world does not need to "be freed from microsoft."
It's not about being "freed" from Microsoft. It's about choice. It's about freedom as in speech. True, many people do run Windows. However, there are those who don't. For the most part, manufacturers refuse to offer a computer with Windows because their MS license forbids them from doing so. This is horribly, horribly wrong. MS has spread so much FUD, that there are truly people who think that there are no other OSes except Windows, and therefore anyone who requests a computer without an OS is definitely going to pirate a copy of Windows and install it.
a manufacturer that pre-installs windows on their machines is not the devil for it
No, they're not. However, MS is the devil for locking them into one-sided agreements and threatening them with the loss of ALL Microsoft licenses if they don't sign.
I use Windows too, and have bought some Microsoft products, back when they were good. However, for me, at least, the whole anti-MS thing is about unfair and deceptive business practices. If RedHat were forcing Dell and Gateway to sell only PCs with RedHat Linux, I'd still be pissed. Same thing if it was Solaris x86, NetBSD, or whatever. Sure, it's easy enough to say "well, the manufacturers should tell Microsoft to fuck off" - problem is, you can't do that, when your bottom line is just barely in the black, and you're faced with losing market share because you can't offer MS programs, and the general public doesn't think alternatives even exist.
The point is, no one company should be able to dictate what manufacturers can and can't sell on their computers. That's what this is all about. One company alone can't stand up to MS. The whole point of Windows Refund Day is that Dell AND Gateway AND Compaq/HP AND IBM (well, less so for them) will get so annoyed by giving out these refunds that they will unite against Microsoft's restrictive licenses.
Who ever said that in business, you are guaranteed to make money forever doing the same old shit?
Corrupt politicians, that's who.
Why bother with innovation when you can buy Senator Hollings or his cronies a couple of new cars each, and get the competition outlawed.
But the end is in sight, I think - the big conglomerates are more and more grasping at straws. There's going to come a time when they claim that using the Mute button on commercials is taking away their revenue, or flipping the channel during commercials is hurting their business model, and then they will have successfully shot themselves in the foot, because no one is going to fall for that.
Slashdot Mirror
What humorless wanker modded the parent as "Troll"? It's +1 Funny. Wish I had mod points...
Ever had a bank account? Or a credit card? The last 4 digits of your social security number is often what the bank uses (in conjunction with mother's maiden name) to verify who you are on the phone.
That's because the last 4 digits of your SSN are guaranteed to be unique. The first 5 digits can easily be determined based on where and when you were born. Given the last 4, you're well on your way to stealing someones identity.
True, it doesn't ask for mother's maiden name - I think that was humor/sarcasm. I don't think anyone would have a problem if it just asked for postal address - that's public information for about 90% of the population. But $20 is not enough to convince me I should give some folks I don't know the last four digits of my social security number.
Of course, if places would stop using your SSN like a citizen ID number, we wouldn't have as much of a problem, but that's a different issue...
"10 seconds? But I'm thirsty now!"
Um, how? I was under the impression that satellite radio offered audio-only programming.
First of all, most people who have TVs in vehicles have them for either a DVD player or a VCR. Sticking a movie in is going to keep the kids quiet for at least 90 minutes. Getting satellite TV only going to keep them quiet for 30 minutes at a time and encourage channel-surfing, which will drive the parents nuts.
Satellite radio offers the same audio channels and programming coast-to-coast; fewer (or zero) commercials, and entertainment you can enjoy without having to take your eyes off the road.
Don't get me wrong - I think satellite radio will crash and burn, but DirecTV for vehicles certainly won't be the death of it...
I know this whole post sounds like a troll, but really, I'm curious - how often have you desperately wanted to link to a site, yet found out you couldn't because of restrictive linking policies.
Also, here's another serious question. Say I publish a cool Lego Mindstorm project on my website, with a bunch of JPEGs. I'm hosted via a cable modem, so if I exceed a certain amount of bandwidth, I'm SOL and have to pay more money. Some guy finds my website, and submits it to Slashdot. Suddenly, my traffic spikes, and I'm over my monthly limit in just 24 hours. Is that fair?
Yes, you can say "You shouldn't have put up the page if you didn't want people to see it", but do you, honestly, every time you put up a website, anticipate that it will be /.ed? No, of course you don't. So now, this huge traffic spike costs me real money. I have two choices: a) Create a linking policy; b) Remove my content. Chances are I'll choose (b), since I know /.ers will thumb their noses at (a). So now, the web has lost some content, and nobody benefits.
You want to say linking policies are stupid? Fine. Want to say they're useless? Fine. That's well within your rights. But what do you propose sites do to combat the /. effect?
Nope. But they certainly did pass a law saying "Thou shalt not commit wire fraud". That's what they're looking for (some guy who is passing himself off as a security specialist and is just stealing people's data), and they think the suspect might have visited one page on cryptome. They only want the logs for that page - they don't give a shit about the rest of the site. Why don't you go read one of the mirrors (or one of the many comments paraphrasing the mirrors) before crying "Big Brother"?
Also, when posting something controversial like this, with headlines that can easily be misinterpreted, the editors should really go make copies of the pages (it's just text - that doesn't require bandwidth) and have them available for viewing so people don't jump to conclusions. Of course, while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony.
Agreed. This hardly smacks of professionalism. Check out these gems from the FAQ page:
They of course don't talk about 50 places where air flows OUT of your walls. Plus, they fail to address the questionable legality (re: building codes) of this "product". Right.... 'Cause there are no bugs that _walk_ instead of fly, and they certainly couldn't crawl up the tube. Oh, and of course, you'll never turn your computer off ever, so there'll never be a time when the fan might be _off_. And what self respecting company would put "muuuhaaahaaa" in a FAQ.When I charge it, it displays a nice little video of the battery charge going to low to high, and back again. If that's not high-quality video, then I don't know what is...
"have to pirate it"? have to? Wow. I didn't think we as a society could sink that low.
You don't _have_ to do anything. You could do the right thing, and not break the law - instead you could write letters to HBO and say "Gosh, we really want to watch your programming, but the Canadian government won't let us". You could write letters to your goverment officials and say "This is terrible - there are 200,000 Canadians prevented from watching this show."
But to say that "We have to break the law, to watch a TV show" is just terrible. Personal convenience is hardly a defense for breaking the law. If you think I'm wrong, try some of these statements and see how far you get:
For the record, photocopy != mimeograph.
Mimeograph machines (aka "ditto machines" in some parts of the country, though really a ditto machine is a hectograph, that uses gelatin) work by pressing special ink through a prepared stencil (often prepared in a typewriter). They were really only useful for typewritten documents. Anyone who went to a public school in the '80s should remember worksheets written up in purple ink that was blurred and not terribly readable. Those were mimeographs.
A photocopier on the other hand works by transfering toner electrostatically to paper, and then using heat to fuse the toner to the paper. (The electrostatic part is why photocopies were once referred to as "photostats").
The photocopier (in electrostatic form) was not invented as a concept until 1938, and the first useful model was produced by Xerox in 1959. Mimeographs, on the other hand, had been around as a concept since the 1870s, and were first mass-produced by A.B.Dick Company of Chicago in the late 1880s.
So really, "a xerox" was never used to refer to mimeographs.
This is correct, however Eisenhower and Truman had this conversation in 1947, when the ammendment had just been proposed. By the end of 1947, less than half of the required number of states had ratified it. They had no way of knowing it would pass. (Though given FDR's 4 terms it seemed likely that it would...)
The poster has no concept of history whatsoever. First, some things to clear up. In the 1948 election, Strom Thurmond was not running as a Republican OR a Democract. He was running as a semi-independent. A group of Southern Democrats, who thought Harry Truman (a democrat) was going too far with his civil rights policies, broke from the Democratic party and formed their own party with their key point being the "right of the States". In practice, the only States' Right they cared about was the right to allow segregation. (These were unofficially known as "Dixiecrats".)
Second, the Democratic Party nominated Eisenhower as a candidate and wanted him to face Truman in the Democratic Primary. Eisenhower (as a national WWII hero) knew that he would win, but declined the nomination. He threw in the towel, and is reported to have discussed this with Truman, saying he (Eisenhower) would decline the nomnation provided Truman did not seek a second term in 1952. We all know the rest of the story - Truman rode around the county, decrying the Republican Congress; the media picked Dewey (Republican) as their favorite; and Truman won by a landslide.
Now, on to your original post. You claim:
the last time that the president and both houses of Congress were republican was then - In the Eisenhower administration.
This was only the case for the first half of the first term of Eisenhower's administration. The 83rd Congress was Republican, but just barely. (In the senate it was a margin of 1 (with 1 independent), and in the house, a margin of 5 (with several independents))
Do you really think the whole Trent Lott fiasco was because he "misspoke himself"?
Yes. Lott has a history of misspeaking himself. Regardless of whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you have to agree that Lott is the kind of person that shouldn't be allowed to speak without a teleprompter. Furthermore, Lott did not say "If we'd had segregation in 1948, things would be better.", nor did he say "Strom, if your platform had been carried in '48, we'd all be happy." He merely said that if Thurmond had been president, we wouldn't have had "these problems" today. He didn't say what problems. It's conceiveable he was talking about Korea, for example. If Thurmond had been elected in '48, it's likely that a) We wouldn't have gone into Korea at all; or b) We would have gone in, but Thurmond wouldn't have fired McArthur like Truman did. He could have been talking about anything at all. Fact is, there's no way in hell Thurmond would have even been elected, given the strong Democratic support for civil rights. Second of all, even if he _had_ been elected, there's no way he would have passed any anti-civil rights stuff with the do-nothing 80th Republican Congress, and by the time the 81st Congress rolled around, it was strongly controlled by Democratic advocaters of Civil Rights, which is what allowed Truman to pass the order of de-segregation for the U.S. Armed Forces so quickly.
Also, Lott was 5 or 6 in 1948. How many of you paid attenton to politics when you were 5 or 6? How many of you in college now remember the detailed platforms of the '84 election? I sure don't.
Fact is, whatever Lott's remark meant, it got blown out of proportion. The reason it took 3 days for ANYONE (on either side) to get upset at his remark, is because they had to go back and look at the '48 election, and figure out what the hell platform Thurmond was running on, because nobody remembers. Regardless, he should have known that anything he says as a politician is going to get misinterpreted, and that's why you keep your mouth shut unless your speechwriter and spin doctor are with you.
Not really. Yes, your Kerb password could be compromised if you send it in the clear, but the whole point of Kerberos is that you shouldn't need to. Normally, what you do is get your tickets (using your password) on the local machine, and use those tickets to make secure connections (a trite explanation, but I'm not getting into TGTs here) to hosts using kerberized telnet and kerberized ftp. But no, there's nothing to stop you from typing your password in plaintext except your own brain.
Yes, you are correct, there is no Kerberized HTTP (anymore), but, well, there's SSL and "it seems to work OK".
no, genius, what I meant was it's pretty ridiculous to accuse me of hating my own race/religion.
Kerberos V5 can be used for both authentication AND encryption.
If your kerb password is sent in plaintext, it can still be sniffed
But it's not sent in plaintext. That's the whole point of Kerberos.
Some explain to me again how 802.11b is so much more insecure than a wired, hubbed network? *hears silence* It's not. For 5 years I worked in an environment where we have a hubbed network. In case you don't know, that means any computer on the network can see all packets (assuming the viewer is in promiscuous mode). So what do you do? You use ssh to log in to machines. You use HTTPS for secure web data. You use Kerberos for POP3 authentication, or IMAP/SSL for IMAP authentication. You use PGP to encrypt any e-mail you're worried about. Everything else, you suck it up and deal. I don't really care that the guy down the hall knows I'm reading Slashdot.
It's the same with wireless. You want to send sensitive data? Do it over HTTPS or an IPSec connection, or an SSH tunnel, or copy it using FTP over SSHv2, or Kerberos, or one of the numerous other methods for encrypting data. If you can't use one of these methods, then maybe you want to send your data in some other form (like, dead-tree form, or verbal form, or using semaphore signals, or something). But don't pretend that sending data in clear text over a wired network is somehow better than sending it over a wireless link. (Note: I'm discounting leased pairs/dedicated circuits, since those are prohibitively expensive.) If your data is readable by someone other than you, assume that someone other than you will read it. Assuming anything else is like walking into a bank and yelling "OK, Mr. Bank Teller, I'm going to give you my PIN number - everyone else, just don't listen, ok?"
Are you some kind of idiot? The original Gypsies are most definitely a race. The name for that race is "Roma" or "Romani". However, there are few of them left, as they have been persecuted throughout history, especially during the holocaust. (Hitler and his allies killed as many Gypsies as Jews, but it's not politically correct to mention any race except the Jews when talking about the Holocaust. {And, for the record, I'm Jewish, so don't bother accusing me of racism} ) In the '60s and '70s many hippies adopted the "Gypsy lifestyle", some even living in restored caravans, however, the original Gypsies were most definitely a race.
We all know what happens when you try to build free-range animatronic robots. Regardless of their safeguards, they go nuts and kill people. It's all documented in this film. Which, incidentally, is what the Simpsons episode is a parody of.
Damn straight. Those pesky Apple Engineers, using FireWire (IEEE 1394), PCI, USB, Ethernet, ATA/IDE, ATAPI. What were they thinking?? Certainly no other computers use those standards.
*sigh*
If it insults GNU/Linux, it's a troll.
If it insults Apple and is factually incorrect, it's +5, Funny.
Well, at least there are no double standards on /.
Sure there is. It's called counterfeiting. It's a hell of a lot easier to counterfeit a check than cash. Largely because banks don't even look at checks anymore when you deposit them. So you lose, until it comes back as returned and you're overdrawn.
Amen to that. I was already formulating my "Big Brother strikes again" response, until halfway through the article, I realized that it's no different from the handbills in the Post Office or "America's Most Wanted".
However, if you're suggesting that Slashdot editors create sensationalist headlines, that's hardly something new.
*braces self for loss of Karma due to this comment*
Bzzt. Wrong. Yes, this would be true if we were talking about getting your PC engraved with your name on it. However, when an established step in the manufacturing process is simply skipped for certain machines, the extra cost is zero. You're eliminating a step, not adding or changing one.
Furthermore, Dell (and Gateway, and the others) all make a big deal about how your PC is built to order. So if your PC is custom-built in the first place, why should it be difficult to customize...
Really? So by removing a step from the manufacturing process (imaging a new install onto a hard drive), that would somehow cost them more? I disbelieve.
If you recall, part of the Microsoft settlement with the government was that they cannot adjust prices based on other products that an OEM sells.
'Cause they've definitely stopped doing that. Absolutely. They're 100% on the level. I guess you didn't read the quote from the former Gateway (or Acer, can't remember) CEO who said that MS continued to do this even AFTER the settlement.
It's not about being "freed" from Microsoft. It's about choice. It's about freedom as in speech. True, many people do run Windows. However, there are those who don't. For the most part, manufacturers refuse to offer a computer with Windows because their MS license forbids them from doing so. This is horribly, horribly wrong. MS has spread so much FUD, that there are truly people who think that there are no other OSes except Windows, and therefore anyone who requests a computer without an OS is definitely going to pirate a copy of Windows and install it.
a manufacturer that pre-installs windows on their machines is not the devil for it
No, they're not. However, MS is the devil for locking them into one-sided agreements and threatening them with the loss of ALL Microsoft licenses if they don't sign.
I use Windows too, and have bought some Microsoft products, back when they were good. However, for me, at least, the whole anti-MS thing is about unfair and deceptive business practices. If RedHat were forcing Dell and Gateway to sell only PCs with RedHat Linux, I'd still be pissed. Same thing if it was Solaris x86, NetBSD, or whatever. Sure, it's easy enough to say "well, the manufacturers should tell Microsoft to fuck off" - problem is, you can't do that, when your bottom line is just barely in the black, and you're faced with losing market share because you can't offer MS programs, and the general public doesn't think alternatives even exist.
The point is, no one company should be able to dictate what manufacturers can and can't sell on their computers. That's what this is all about. One company alone can't stand up to MS. The whole point of Windows Refund Day is that Dell AND Gateway AND Compaq/HP AND IBM (well, less so for them) will get so annoyed by giving out these refunds that they will unite against Microsoft's restrictive licenses.
Corrupt politicians, that's who.
Why bother with innovation when you can buy Senator Hollings or his cronies a couple of new cars each, and get the competition outlawed.
But the end is in sight, I think - the big conglomerates are more and more grasping at straws. There's going to come a time when they claim that using the Mute button on commercials is taking away their revenue, or flipping the channel during commercials is hurting their business model, and then they will have successfully shot themselves in the foot, because no one is going to fall for that.