At its core the book How to Win Friends and Influence People is a book on social engineering. It is study on hacking society. Every geek should read it.
By forceing outgoing mail through an ISP's SMTP server the ISP could throttle the rate email is sent. The throttle could be based on messages over time instead of bits/second. Message throttling should be more effective at controlling spam then bandwidth throttling. However this type of throttling could also be done transparently without blocking outgoing port 25.
There is/was a simple STMP server that shipped with OpenBSD. It is a STMP proxy that did not spool email. It was designed to protect the real SMTP server from certain attacks. If not already a feature, message based throttling probably could be added to this SMTP proxy without too much difficulty.
The downside to STMP message throttling is that it limits a users ability to run a mailing list. I am sure I am not the only one who runs a mailing list to better keep in touch with my friends. Many of whom are now scattered about the globe.
SMTP servers run by ISPs are not always reliable. My ISP had a bad habit of mysteriously holding mail in the queue for hours at a time. Some ISPs have odd restrictions such as a maximum number of recipients.
I used to believe that restricting outgoing port 25 might limit the ammount of spam. Now I am not sure. I suspect that it is reasonably easy for spamware to find a user's SMTP server credentials and use the ISP's SMTP server. There is probably an easy to use API to send mail through Outlook (and the ISP's SMTP server) without the user knowing. Restricting outgoing port 25 does prevent access to open relays, but is that still a major source of spam?
Users run their own SMTP servers as ISPs may be unreliable, or have odd restrictions. In the long run restricting outgoing port 25 probably won't limit spam sent from compromised computers as malware will use the ISP's SMTP server.
I find it interesting how "multinational" has become a bad word. It is not just a company it is a "big multinational" run for your lives. Whereas other smaller companies are not held in such contempt. It is foolish.
It is a mistake to say that big multinationals have bought out governments. Companies of all sizes have paying for legislation since before the American revolution. Most companies have formed industry groups to better lobby politicians. It is not just companies. Labour unions have been strongarming government since the first strike.
Blameing the "Big Multinationals" is just a trivialization of the problem.
The cost of running fiber is only slightly more then running copper, as most of the cost is labour not materials. The expensive part of fiber is the media converters and switches. I suspect that the university ran fiber because they will be able to upgrade to 10Gigabit for only the cost of new switches. It should save money in the long term.
I don't think there's a signal-based limit to fiber.
There are limits, but the limits are pretty long. Multimode fiber typically has a limit of about 2km. Singlemode fiber will typically have ranges up to 100km. Multimode is less expensive then singlemode and probably what this university is useing.
Shop around for a better set of headphones. Two factors that can affect comfort are fit and sound quality. Sound quality is often overlooked. Higher end headphones should fit better, and have a better sound. A headphone amplifier may be required.
Understand that some people cannot stand any level of music even if you are able to deaden the sound. It is not because they hate you or your music. It is because they find music of any kind very distracting.
Dvorak might be more efficient, but it's hardly as dramatic as you claim.
I made no claims about efficiency. I stated that Dvorak is ergonomically superior. It is easier on the users hands. I did not, and I do not claim that a Dvorak user can type faster.
If you had read my second paragraph you would see that I agree with the economists who state that there is no advantage to switching from Qwerty to Dvorak.
Some people claim that Dvorak proves a theory about incumbent technologies. I disagree with that absolute theory. I also disagree with the opposite theory that network effects do not effect a free market. I believe the truth to be somewhere in the middle.
I wish economists would stop throwing Dvorak around to prove their theories. There is no economic advantage to switch from Dvorak to Qwerty. However Dvorak is ergonomically superior to Qwerty.
You probably should have read my second paragraph.
My complaint is with economists debateing the ergonomic advantages of the Dvorak keyboard. Economically the economists are correct: there is no advantage in switching from Qwerty to Dvorak. There cost is too high for little or no gain.
I hate the statement: "Dvorak superiority is a myth." The ergonomics of the Dvorak keyboard are far superior to Qwerty. Economists are in no position to debate that superiority.
In terms of the cost of switching to Dvorak then Qwerty probably has the advantage. Replaceing all those keyboards and retraining typeists would be a huge expence for little economic gain. I am suspecious of any study that shows a huge productivity gain from switching to Dvorak. Dvorak users may type faster, but most keyboard users I know are not limited by their typeing speed.
Certain economists like those who wrote the Qwerty article above hate the Dvorak keyboard. Dvorak shows that the market does not always choose the most advanced (high tech) products. There are some theories of a free market economy that rely on the market always chooseing the best. Unfortunately the Dvorak keyboard delivers quite a blow to these theories. If these economists were scientists they would rework their theories.
The Dvorak and Qwerty keyboards can be added to a list of technologies that show that a partial solution that is out first will have an advantage over a perfect solution. It is an example of The Rise of "Worse is Better". Backwards compatibility is part of the same picture.
Software defined digital radio is great. But who is going to pay to upgrade all the existing radios? Some stations are useing the same hardware they started with 50 years ago. The stations will probably continue to use that gear for another 50. An AM reciever has maybe as much as 50 cents worth of electronics in it. A FM reciever costs another 25 cents. Can a digital radio be made that cheaply?
Reed (RTFA) may be correct about the technology, but in my view he is naive about the economics.
Welcome to security. The technology side to security is easier then the human side.
Not all of those are social engineering attacks though. Modifying the header to prevent the data from being properly decrypted is a technical attacking. Data security is protecting your data from a 3rd party while ensureing that the recipient can read the data.
Cryptographers hate poorly implemented security, especially when properly implemented security is possible. That is why this is news: People need to know that WinZip is not secure despite the "AES" feature. We the tech savvy have to let the unwashed masses know that WinZip isn't secure.
More correctly: few major label acts are precieved as starving. Even artists who are too cool or legit to have an image, still have an image. You make a good point. If fans saw how artists really lived the fans may be more willing to support them.
did you know that by installing a DVB-PCI card in your computer and then pointing an 18" satellite dish at Echostar7 you can listen to over 120 FREE audio feeds?
Tell the guy the site is a big hoax. Now the hoax believer is caught in a paradox: which hoax does he want to believe? Say the author is a proffessor at a big name University on the other side of the country. Conspiracy theorists distrust big shot proffessors, and universities in general. Adding "other side of the country" (e.g. L.A. or NewYork) often seals the deal. If you vaguely suggest that "even CNN was caught by this hoax" you help your friend save face.
Attacking the credibility of conspiracies indirectly is easier then trying to debunk the pseudoscience or credibility of the conspiracy author. The conspiracies are written specifically to counter debunking and credibility attacks so that the dupe does not have to think to counter your arguments. By attacking the conspiracy indirectly you force the dupe to think.
You should check out Remind. It was designed as a cal/clendar replacement. It has an optional GUI, postscript, and html output support. The postscript output is nice.
Remind is written in simple C. The GUI is in TK. It should compile and run on anything resembling *nix, including MacOS, and Cygwin. Remind is licenced under the GPL.
Certificates could work at nearly eliminatimg spam. The full infrastructure required in not currently in place though. Currently certificates are cheap and easy to get. Using (stolen) credit cards spammers could buy certs and basically spam as normal. To eliminate spam it is necessary to positively identify the originator of the spam. To achive that certificates would have to be harder to get. Certificate purchasers would have to provide positive proof of identification. Certificate issuers would have to stand behind the certificates they issue. An other nice to have feature would be the ability to instandly revoke certificates.
VPN technology is more mature and better tested. When it comes to security that is a very nice feature. VPNs are easier to manage due to a better suite of management tools. Typically VPNs can be managed in one place versus manageing multiple access points. Secure easy to use administration is often overlooked, but it is a very important piece of the security puzzle. If a procedure is difficult or time consumeing, it is not going to be completed in a timely fashion.
Public shared keys as used with WPA-PSK are difficult to manage and generally a bad idea. Consider the following: A laptop is lost or stolen. If WPA-PSK is used, the password on every wireless client must now be changed. This is not a quick and easy task. If a VPN with certificated based authentication is used instead, only one certificate needs to be revoked. Revokeing a certificate is a trivial task.
There is one advantage to WEP or WPA. Useing either will keep the wardriving kiddies away.
Regarding AES:
While AES is better then the RC4 algorithm used in WEP, it dosen't mean that a product using AES will be more secure. RC4 is not the problem with WEP. The poor implementation of RC4 is the problem. Specially WEP allows known weak keys. A poor implementation of AES could also be vulvnerable to attack. This is a big problem with encryption. Too many people see a product's buzzword compliant encryption algorithms and assume this makes the product secure. Any idiot can use encryption, but it takes a smart developer to use encryption properly.
Slashdot Mirror
At its core the book How to Win Friends and Influence People is a book on social engineering. It is study on hacking society. Every geek should read it.
One thing I did not consider is throttling.
By forceing outgoing mail through an ISP's SMTP server the ISP could throttle the rate email is sent. The throttle could be based on messages over time instead of bits/second. Message throttling should be more effective at controlling spam then bandwidth throttling. However this type of throttling could also be done transparently without blocking outgoing port 25.
There is/was a simple STMP server that shipped with OpenBSD. It is a STMP proxy that did not spool email. It was designed to protect the real SMTP server from certain attacks. If not already a feature, message based throttling probably could be added to this SMTP proxy without too much difficulty.
The downside to STMP message throttling is that it limits a users ability to run a mailing list. I am sure I am not the only one who runs a mailing list to better keep in touch with my friends. Many of whom are now scattered about the globe.
SMTP servers run by ISPs are not always reliable. My ISP had a bad habit of mysteriously holding mail in the queue for hours at a time. Some ISPs have odd restrictions such as a maximum number of recipients.
I used to believe that restricting outgoing port 25 might limit the ammount of spam. Now I am not sure. I suspect that it is reasonably easy for spamware to find a user's SMTP server credentials and use the ISP's SMTP server. There is probably an easy to use API to send mail through Outlook (and the ISP's SMTP server) without the user knowing. Restricting outgoing port 25 does prevent access to open relays, but is that still a major source of spam?
Users run their own SMTP servers as ISPs may be unreliable, or have odd restrictions. In the long run restricting outgoing port 25 probably won't limit spam sent from compromised computers as malware will use the ISP's SMTP server.
I find it interesting how "multinational" has become a bad word. It is not just a company it is a "big multinational" run for your lives. Whereas other smaller companies are not held in such contempt. It is foolish.
It is a mistake to say that big multinationals have bought out governments. Companies of all sizes have paying for legislation since before the American revolution. Most companies have formed industry groups to better lobby politicians. It is not just companies. Labour unions have been strongarming government since the first strike.
Blameing the "Big Multinationals" is just a trivialization of the problem.
The Matrox drivers for the newer parhelia based cards are closed source.
The cost of running fiber is only slightly more then running copper, as most of the cost is labour not materials. The expensive part of fiber is the media converters and switches. I suspect that the university ran fiber because they will be able to upgrade to 10Gigabit for only the cost of new switches. It should save money in the long term.
I don't think there's a signal-based limit to fiber.
There are limits, but the limits are pretty long. Multimode fiber typically has a limit of about 2km. Singlemode fiber will typically have ranges up to 100km. Multimode is less expensive then singlemode and probably what this university is useing.
Shop around for a better set of headphones. Two factors that can affect comfort are fit and sound quality. Sound quality is often overlooked. Higher end headphones should fit better, and have a better sound. A headphone amplifier may be required.
Understand that some people cannot stand any level of music even if you are able to deaden the sound. It is not because they hate you or your music. It is because they find music of any kind very distracting.
Dvorak might be more efficient, but it's hardly as dramatic as you claim.
I made no claims about efficiency. I stated that Dvorak is ergonomically superior. It is easier on the users hands. I did not, and I do not claim that a Dvorak user can type faster.
If you had read my second paragraph you would see that I agree with the economists who state that there is no advantage to switching from Qwerty to Dvorak.
Some people claim that Dvorak proves a theory about incumbent technologies. I disagree with that absolute theory. I also disagree with the opposite theory that network effects do not effect a free market. I believe the truth to be somewhere in the middle.
I wish economists would stop throwing Dvorak around to prove their theories. There is no economic advantage to switch from Dvorak to Qwerty. However Dvorak is ergonomically superior to Qwerty.
You probably should have read my second paragraph.
My complaint is with economists debateing the ergonomic advantages of the Dvorak keyboard. Economically the economists are correct: there is no advantage in switching from Qwerty to Dvorak. There cost is too high for little or no gain.
I hate the statement: "Dvorak superiority is a myth." The ergonomics of the Dvorak keyboard are far superior to Qwerty. Economists are in no position to debate that superiority.
In terms of the cost of switching to Dvorak then Qwerty probably has the advantage. Replaceing all those keyboards and retraining typeists would be a huge expence for little economic gain. I am suspecious of any study that shows a huge productivity gain from switching to Dvorak. Dvorak users may type faster, but most keyboard users I know are not limited by their typeing speed.
Certain economists like those who wrote the Qwerty article above hate the Dvorak keyboard. Dvorak shows that the market does not always choose the most advanced (high tech) products. There are some theories of a free market economy that rely on the market always chooseing the best. Unfortunately the Dvorak keyboard delivers quite a blow to these theories. If these economists were scientists they would rework their theories.
The Dvorak and Qwerty keyboards can be added to a list of technologies that show that a partial solution that is out first will have an advantage over a perfect solution. It is an example of The Rise of "Worse is Better". Backwards compatibility is part of the same picture.
Software defined digital radio is great. But who is going to pay to upgrade all the existing radios? Some stations are useing the same hardware they started with 50 years ago. The stations will probably continue to use that gear for another 50. An AM reciever has maybe as much as 50 cents worth of electronics in it. A FM reciever costs another 25 cents. Can a digital radio be made that cheaply?
Reed (RTFA) may be correct about the technology, but in my view he is naive about the economics.
Welcome to security. The technology side to security is easier then the human side.
Not all of those are social engineering attacks though. Modifying the header to prevent the data from being properly decrypted is a technical attacking. Data security is protecting your data from a 3rd party while ensureing that the recipient can read the data.
Cryptographers hate poorly implemented security, especially when properly implemented security is possible. That is why this is news: People need to know that WinZip is not secure despite the "AES" feature. We the tech savvy have to let the unwashed masses know that WinZip isn't secure.
few of the major label acts are starving
More correctly: few major label acts are precieved as starving. Even artists who are too cool or legit to have an image, still have an image. You make a good point. If fans saw how artists really lived the fans may be more willing to support them.
did you know that by installing a DVB-PCI card in your computer and then pointing an 18" satellite dish at Echostar7 you can listen to over 120 FREE audio feeds?
I did not know that. More details please.
Tell the guy the site is a big hoax. Now the hoax believer is caught in a paradox: which hoax does he want to believe? Say the author is a proffessor at a big name University on the other side of the country. Conspiracy theorists distrust big shot proffessors, and universities in general. Adding "other side of the country" (e.g. L.A. or NewYork) often seals the deal. If you vaguely suggest that "even CNN was caught by this hoax" you help your friend save face.
Attacking the credibility of conspiracies indirectly is easier then trying to debunk the pseudoscience or credibility of the conspiracy author. The conspiracies are written specifically to counter debunking and credibility attacks so that the dupe does not have to think to counter your arguments. By attacking the conspiracy indirectly you force the dupe to think.
You should check out Remind. It was designed as a cal/clendar replacement. It has an optional GUI, postscript, and html output support. The postscript output is nice.
Remind is written in simple C. The GUI is in TK. It should compile and run on anything resembling *nix, including MacOS, and Cygwin. Remind is licenced under the GPL.
It's called a bunch of pricks thinking they're better than the rest.
Pot, meet Kettle.
The Anglefire site was the original. It now links to kiddofspeed.com.
Oral traditions of floods are to be expected. Flood plains are very fertile and able to supply the argicultural needs of an ermerging civilization.
I had not heard of this series of books until now. All I can say is: "wow." I like Salon's take on the series.
Certificates could work at nearly eliminatimg spam. The full infrastructure required in not currently in place though. Currently certificates are cheap and easy to get. Using (stolen) credit cards spammers could buy certs and basically spam as normal. To eliminate spam it is necessary to positively identify the originator of the spam. To achive that certificates would have to be harder to get. Certificate purchasers would have to provide positive proof of identification. Certificate issuers would have to stand behind the certificates they issue. An other nice to have feature would be the ability to instandly revoke certificates.
The only patches I know of are for running VMware 4.0.x on a 2.6 Linux host. This dosen't help you one bit though :-)
The only people in fantasyland are the 1314 that joined the Amiga club.
VPN technology is more mature and better tested. When it comes to security that is a very nice feature. VPNs are easier to manage due to a better suite of management tools. Typically VPNs can be managed in one place versus manageing multiple access points. Secure easy to use administration is often overlooked, but it is a very important piece of the security puzzle. If a procedure is difficult or time consumeing, it is not going to be completed in a timely fashion.
Public shared keys as used with WPA-PSK are difficult to manage and generally a bad idea. Consider the following: A laptop is lost or stolen. If WPA-PSK is used, the password on every wireless client must now be changed. This is not a quick and easy task. If a VPN with certificated based authentication is used instead, only one certificate needs to be revoked. Revokeing a certificate is a trivial task.
There is one advantage to WEP or WPA. Useing either will keep the wardriving kiddies away.
Regarding AES:
While AES is better then the RC4 algorithm used in WEP, it dosen't mean that a product using AES will be more secure. RC4 is not the problem with WEP. The poor implementation of RC4 is the problem. Specially WEP allows known weak keys. A poor implementation of AES could also be vulvnerable to attack. This is a big problem with encryption. Too many people see a product's buzzword compliant encryption algorithms and assume this makes the product secure. Any idiot can use encryption, but it takes a smart developer to use encryption properly.