slightly reconfigured SpaceShip One could probably earn a handsome profit lugging small (~300 pound) satellites into orbit [...].
[...] that is what SpaceShip One has solved. A cheap ride to LEO. Significantly less energy required from there to your parking spot.
You seem to have the impression that SpaceShipOne reaches orbit. This is not the case. SS1 reaches 100km, which is awfully darn high... but it is way, WAY short of orbital height and velocity. (Especially velocity.)
SS1 is a significant evolutionary step towards space tourism. It is not a revolutionary steppingstone to orbit. Sorry to disappoint.
If you're interested in a winged vehicle to orbit, look at the Pegasus booster. (Which has some major airframe components designed by Scaled Composites.)
With Sender-ID, MS can't afford to do their own thing and break interoperability with the rest of the world, because they're not a large-enough player. With PC hardware, they can and want to do just that [...]
What PC makers (and to a lesser extent device makers) risk with this is irrelevance.
If Microsoft locks in the next motherboard standard, people may stick to the current standard in droves. Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems to me that just about any PC on the market right now is Fast Enough for most everone's daily use. While special purposes (like gaming) need special hardware, there's little reason for the bulk of home or business users to do a performance upgrade on the desktop in the near future. Several companies already thrive on producing processors and machines a generation or two off the leading edge... why would this change?
Several big manufacturers may go along with this, since they need to generate a reason for consumers to upgrade. But not all will, and not all who do will throw out the current open standards.
Cringely's example of IBM and Compaq is a good one. IBM tried to lock in their PC standards while viable alternatives existed, and they got creamed in the marketplace every time. Apple did the same thing, and they got creamed too.
Why should it be different this time? Microsoft could maybe have pulled this off a few years ago, but now all the PC and USB device manufacturers know that viable alteratives to Microsoft Windows exist. (OSX, Linux, BSD.) It's too late.
Surely some manufacturers will place a bet on Microsoft's competitors and support dual or open standards. Those that do may struggle for a time, but they will reap the marketshare reward in the end.
Use a propane bottle, a solenoid valve, a pipe and a spark plug. Make the "guns" in the turrets just special-effects devices that look and sound real.
It'll scare the bejeezus out of the intruders, wake up everyone in the neighborhood, and allow your vast array of digital cameras to catch their face staring in open-mouted shock at the auto-tracking laser pointers and fake muzzle flashes.
Stream the images wirelessly onto an offsite server, and you're golden!
Re:Surely you must be joking Mr Feynman
on
Steel Bolt Hacking
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The poster confused two different stories into one.
In one, Feynman had learned a technique to pick up the last number or two of the three-number combination from open file cabinets, and he also learned that one only had to be accurate to about +/- 3 on the dial. This allowed him to drastically reduce the number of guesses needed for a lock.
He was telling a colleague about this, and they ducked into an office so he could demonstrate. Feynman already knew the last number for this particular lock, so he was saying something like... "so I can try out the numbers really quickly. Let's assume the first number is this [sets dial] and I'll check the second number like this..." and the lock opens almost immediately. He thinks fast and continues without pause "... and that's how it's done!" And they walk out, leaving everyone in the office gaping in shock. It was a lucky guess ont he first two numbers, but he didn't let on.
In the other story, the Boss had a BIG safe installed, and after Manhattan was closing down they needed to get into it. People asked Feynman to try it, because of his reputation, and he said he would. (How could he refuse without destroying his rep?) He goes into the office, and it's open. Feynman eventually finds out (after many amusing diversions) that the base locksmith had opened it by trying the factory combination.
Regarding the superscripted 'th' argument, this document from Bush's official records also contains a superscripted 'th':
And there ends the similarities between that document and these. That document damns more than it forgives, friend. Compare the typography.
It does help to clarify the matter. The forgery camp has been making blanket statements that superscript "th" was utterly unavailable circa 1972. They have also said that proportional spacing was utterly unavailable circa 1972. It turns out both things were available, but no one has yet found a machine that could do both. (I'm inclined to think that, in 1972, if IBM didn't make one then nobody did... but I could be wrong.)
These documents do look suspiciously modern to my eyes, but I think it will be helpful for everyone to be very clear on exactly what is claimed to be anachronistic: no known typewriter had both a superscript "th" and proportional spacing. Also, the font itself may be anacronistic.
I think the jury's still out on this. It is possible that some obscure custom typebar for the IBM Executive was in use that happened both to resemble TNR, and include a superscripted "th"... but I'm not gonna hold my breath awaiting its discovery. Right now it looks to me like CBS screwed up bigtime.
Re:Jeopardy doesn't worry me
on
They Killed Ken!
·
· Score: 2, Funny
We aired A-Team. No one can hit a target from 5 feet even though they were all vietnam vets.
Dude! The A-Team always missed on purpose. It takes real skill to fire a fully-automatic weapon aimed right next to folks and just scare the bejeezus out of 'em. Not to mention blowing up all those cars without actually hurting anyone.
Hmm. Well, I might be misremembering, but I coulda sworn there was such a thing on a typewriter we had when I was a kid. This was in the late 70's to early 80's, but it was not a new typewriter by any means. We couldn't afford a new one.
I recall thinking how cool it was to be able to punch one button to get "th" or "1/4", and I am pretty sure the "th" was superscripted. But that old clunker has long since gone to the great garage sale in the sky, so I can't verify it.
Interesting stuff, though. If it is a forgery, then it's a pretty darn clumsy one, and you'd think that someone would have noticed before this made primetime. Dorks.
No, I used it in a darkroom. Made proofreading a bitch, let me tell ya! [rolls eyes]
Look, I'm willing to entertain the notion that these are fake. They look modern to me. But I don't think superscript is the defining issue.
There were apparently god-only-knows how many different font balls for that typewriter, and we don't know which was in use. We also don't even know if it was that model typewriter, or something else entirely. (Although IBM is a good bet, since it was a government office.)
Font spacing is the killer issue, not superscript. You can't get proportional fonts just by changing a type head, but you could concievably get superscripts without changing. If this document's letter spacing is beyond the capability of high-end standalone office equipment circa 1972, then it's almost certainly fake. I have neither the expertise to say nor the time to investigate fully.
But I know the old typewriter I used when I was a kid had a few specialty superscript keys, so just chill.
Typewriters don't automagically superscript such things like Word does.
Well, heck, where do you think Microsoft got the idea? From typewriters, of course. It didn't do it automagically, there was a key for it.:-)
I don't even need to research to know that superscripts were around on typewriters for a long time, because I used an old manual one as a kid that had "th", "st", and others. (It was an Underwood, I think. Some heavy black mechanical beast.)
In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.
That's a very interesting point.
However, some quick research has revealed that there existed non-monospace typewriters at the time. See wikipedia.
This typewriter series offered four character widths, apparently, and was available from well before the period in question. I haven't really had a chance to go over the memos with a ruler, and I'm no typography expert, but it might be that this is the explanation.
(Still, I'll admit that the typography does look suspiciously good. If it turns out that the IBM Executive could do this in the early 70's, I'm very impressed!)
Also, I looked closely at the punctuation spacing in the 01 August 1972 memo, point 2 "[...] commander, [...]" and subject, "Bush, George W.1st Lt.3244754FG". On my PC at least, the spacing of the punctuation looks distinctly different from the PDF memo, under both palantino and TNR fonts. The serifs on the capital letters, particularly the W, also don't look much like the memo. If my PC is representative, the font isn't either of the ones proposed.
This is by no means an exhastive test, and again I'm no expert. I look forward to a typographical specialist's view.
1) Nader did not make the ballot in Oregon, which should strengthen Kerry against Bush quite a bit.
2) Oregon's polls show a trend of Kerry opening a gap, whereas Pennsylvania is trending towards a tie. (Of course, the site maintainer will be the first to say that these projections are not very reliable until October.)
3) Pennsylvania is more populous, which means more electoral votes at stake and more expense to reach the voters.
This Oregonian thinks the money is best spent in Pennsylvania.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it?:-) Security is always hard for people to take seriously.
One approach is to ask if they would seriously consider leaving the front door of the business unlocked at night. The wireless AP is a doorway to your network that is unlocked, and that no one is watching. (Well, no one but you.)
Okay, it's locked, but with a crappy lock. Think of SSID as a little hook-and-eye gadget, not a real lock. WEP-64 is a little luggage lock; anyone with sidecutters and a strong hand can break it. WEP-128 is more like a decent padlock... but anyone with good boltcutters can get in. What you want is WPA or WPA2, which are more like a real deadbolt in a good metal door. Go get some samples from the hardware store, and pull 'em out of your pocket during your pitch. Ask them which lock they would like protecting their office.
Most importantly, look at the data on your network. Have you got any databases with names and SSNs? This could be a list of inhouse personnel, customers, or whomever. (Every US company has a list of employee SSNs somewhere, and odds are it's on the network.) Those files are a great target for identity thieves, a target with potentially better cash value to the thieves than your office equipment! Identity theft has been in the papers, they'll understand that.
If they come to understand that a little luggage lock is all that stands between their own SSN and identity theft, I expect they'll see the light.
Also, see if you can find a warsurvery site that lists AP's in your town or neighborhood. It'll let you prove that there are people looking for these things nearby. I had the good (?) fortune to actually chat with a wardriver at a 7-11 not half a mile from my network. Reporting that conversation got the partners attention. They already took security seriously, but that really brought it home.
Is the AP connected to your internal network behind your firewall?
If so, you should lay on the best encryption you have. If you can see other APs on the block, they can see you, too. You don't want someone to come in and rifle through your network, or release a worm or whatever. It is prudent to consider anything connected to the AP as untrusted. The best solution, in my mind, is to put a firewall between your APs and your internal network, and allow only VPN access to your internal net. A few steps back in paranoia from that is to use the best security your hardware supports.
64-bit WEP is only one step up from an open AP. It'll keep the honest people honest, but will barely cause the dishonest people to break stride.
With a Centrino-based laptop, the boss's machine (almost certainly) has good enough hardware and OS to support WPA. With WinXP, it'll even roam between different netwoks reasonably well when he takes it home or wherever. If your AP doesn't support WPA, then at least use the highest level of WEP available to you... and consider getting a new AP that supports WPA2. (I think the Proxim Orinocos look good, but I haven't got one yet. Their AP-600 sounds about right for your use.)
If you're doing IT for this company, you need to be able to get your users' machines set up right, even the CEO's. Y'all only need to enter that nasty hex password once on each machine; it's not that big a burden and you can do it for him.
If he won't let you do it, tell him that it's your job to protect his company, and in order for the company to be protected this must be done. He can do it or you can, but it must be done.
If he still refuses, I'd either kill the AP (pulling the patch cable from the switch back in the server room should do nicely) or resign. This sounds extreme, but if he's not letting you do your job right, you probably don't want to work there anyway. Besides, he's probably not updating his virus scanner like you told him to, either.:-)
I trust it won't come to that, though. If you lay the issues out for him and tell him that its his company's data (possibly financial data) at stake, I think he'll listen. Good luck!
I have good luck with the Maxtor One-Touch drives. The ones I have include Hi-Speed USB2 and FireWire400, and hold 250Gb. I'm using them as part of a backup rotation. (By the way, BackupExec 8.6 doesn't play very well with removable drives, but it can be made to work if you fuss over it enough. BE 9 is supposed to work much better.)
The drives are kinda bulky, too big to fit in all but the most spacious pockets. I happen to have a jacket with pockets spacious enough... almost. This resulted in a 1-meter drop test onto a concrete sidewalk when I was walking home one day. It put some nicks and gouges in the aluminum case, but otherwise did not hurt the drive.
Slashdot Mirror
slightly reconfigured SpaceShip One could probably earn a handsome profit lugging small (~300 pound) satellites into orbit [...].
[...] that is what SpaceShip One has solved. A cheap ride to LEO. Significantly less energy required from there to your parking spot.
You seem to have the impression that SpaceShipOne reaches orbit. This is not the case. SS1 reaches 100km, which is awfully darn high... but it is way, WAY short of orbital height and velocity. (Especially velocity.)
SS1 is a significant evolutionary step towards space tourism. It is not a revolutionary steppingstone to orbit. Sorry to disappoint.
If you're interested in a winged vehicle to orbit, look at the Pegasus booster. (Which has some major airframe components designed by Scaled Composites.)
At last, the Big Rock Candy Mountain has been found!
Now, how do they find a boxcar headed that way?
The reason for the rapid collapse of their universe is - say the researchers - because 'internet users feel confident, secure and empowered.'
When they're on it, so do people using meth.
Agreed. If I can set up OpenBSD on one of these as my second BSD box ever, I'm sure someone with some actual BSD experience can do it easily.
With Sender-ID, MS can't afford to do their own thing and break interoperability with the rest of the world, because they're not a large-enough player. With PC hardware, they can and want to do just that [...]
Worked for Apple!
Oh, wait...
What PC makers (and to a lesser extent device makers) risk with this is irrelevance.
If Microsoft locks in the next motherboard standard, people may stick to the current standard in droves. Maybe I lack imagination, but it seems to me that just about any PC on the market right now is Fast Enough for most everone's daily use. While special purposes (like gaming) need special hardware, there's little reason for the bulk of home or business users to do a performance upgrade on the desktop in the near future. Several companies already thrive on producing processors and machines a generation or two off the leading edge... why would this change?
Several big manufacturers may go along with this, since they need to generate a reason for consumers to upgrade. But not all will, and not all who do will throw out the current open standards.
Cringely's example of IBM and Compaq is a good one. IBM tried to lock in their PC standards while viable alternatives existed, and they got creamed in the marketplace every time. Apple did the same thing, and they got creamed too.
Why should it be different this time? Microsoft could maybe have pulled this off a few years ago, but now all the PC and USB device manufacturers know that viable alteratives to Microsoft Windows exist. (OSX, Linux, BSD.) It's too late.
Surely some manufacturers will place a bet on Microsoft's competitors and support dual or open standards. Those that do may struggle for a time, but they will reap the marketshare reward in the end.
Use a propane bottle, a solenoid valve, a pipe and a spark plug. Make the "guns" in the turrets just special-effects devices that look and sound real.
It'll scare the bejeezus out of the intruders, wake up everyone in the neighborhood, and allow your vast array of digital cameras to catch their face staring in open-mouted shock at the auto-tracking laser pointers and fake muzzle flashes.
Stream the images wirelessly onto an offsite server, and you're golden!
The poster confused two different stories into one.
In one, Feynman had learned a technique to pick up the last number or two of the three-number combination from open file cabinets, and he also learned that one only had to be accurate to about +/- 3 on the dial. This allowed him to drastically reduce the number of guesses needed for a lock.
He was telling a colleague about this, and they ducked into an office so he could demonstrate. Feynman already knew the last number for this particular lock, so he was saying something like... "so I can try out the numbers really quickly. Let's assume the first number is this [sets dial] and I'll check the second number like this..." and the lock opens almost immediately. He thinks fast and continues without pause "... and that's how it's done!" And they walk out, leaving everyone in the office gaping in shock. It was a lucky guess ont he first two numbers, but he didn't let on.
In the other story, the Boss had a BIG safe installed, and after Manhattan was closing down they needed to get into it. People asked Feynman to try it, because of his reputation, and he said he would. (How could he refuse without destroying his rep?) He goes into the office, and it's open. Feynman eventually finds out (after many amusing diversions) that the base locksmith had opened it by trying the factory combination.
Do these documents appear to be forgeries? Yes, definitely. Is there anything about them that suggests they're not forgeries? Nope.
An interesting new development, FYI. Apparently Killian's secretary says she didn't type them, but that "The information in here was correct [...]".
So:
Forgeries? Yes.
Accurate? Maybe.
Confusing? Certainly.
Donate them to developing countries (like iraq) and pocket a tax break.
Like, how about not donating them to a country primarily filled with muslims. Pork, ya know.
Whoops. Maybe Nader did make the Oregon ballot after all. One more appeal to go, then we'll know for sure.
Anyway, Pennsylvania is still more in need of the funds, IMHO.
Okay, now that would be cool.
Regarding the superscripted 'th' argument, this document from Bush's official records also contains a superscripted 'th':
And there ends the similarities between that document and these. That document damns more than it forgives, friend. Compare the typography.
It does help to clarify the matter. The forgery camp has been making blanket statements that superscript "th" was utterly unavailable circa 1972. They have also said that proportional spacing was utterly unavailable circa 1972. It turns out both things were available, but no one has yet found a machine that could do both. (I'm inclined to think that, in 1972, if IBM didn't make one then nobody did... but I could be wrong.)
These documents do look suspiciously modern to my eyes, but I think it will be helpful for everyone to be very clear on exactly what is claimed to be anachronistic: no known typewriter had both a superscript "th" and proportional spacing. Also, the font itself may be anacronistic.
I think the jury's still out on this. It is possible that some obscure custom typebar for the IBM Executive was in use that happened both to resemble TNR, and include a superscripted "th"... but I'm not gonna hold my breath awaiting its discovery. Right now it looks to me like CBS screwed up bigtime.
We aired A-Team. No one can hit a target from 5 feet even though they were all vietnam vets.
Dude! The A-Team always missed on purpose. It takes real skill to fire a fully-automatic weapon aimed right next to folks and just scare the bejeezus out of 'em. Not to mention blowing up all those cars without actually hurting anyone.
It's the bad guys who are lousy shots!
(Yes, I'm kidding.)
Hmm. Well, I might be misremembering, but I coulda sworn there was such a thing on a typewriter we had when I was a kid. This was in the late 70's to early 80's, but it was not a new typewriter by any means. We couldn't afford a new one.
I recall thinking how cool it was to be able to punch one button to get "th" or "1/4", and I am pretty sure the "th" was superscripted. But that old clunker has long since gone to the great garage sale in the sky, so I can't verify it.
Interesting stuff, though. If it is a forgery, then it's a pretty darn clumsy one, and you'd think that someone would have noticed before this made primetime. Dorks.
Have you ever actually seen a typewriter?
No, I used it in a darkroom. Made proofreading a bitch, let me tell ya! [rolls eyes]
Look, I'm willing to entertain the notion that these are fake. They look modern to me. But I don't think superscript is the defining issue.
There were apparently god-only-knows how many different font balls for that typewriter, and we don't know which was in use. We also don't even know if it was that model typewriter, or something else entirely. (Although IBM is a good bet, since it was a government office.)
Font spacing is the killer issue, not superscript. You can't get proportional fonts just by changing a type head, but you could concievably get superscripts without changing. If this document's letter spacing is beyond the capability of high-end standalone office equipment circa 1972, then it's almost certainly fake. I have neither the expertise to say nor the time to investigate fully.
But I know the old typewriter I used when I was a kid had a few specialty superscript keys, so just chill.
Typewriters don't automagically superscript such things like Word does.
:-)
Well, heck, where do you think Microsoft got the idea? From typewriters, of course. It didn't do it automagically, there was a key for it.
I don't even need to research to know that superscripts were around on typewriters for a long time, because I used an old manual one as a kid that had "th", "st", and others. (It was an Underwood, I think. Some heavy black mechanical beast.)
In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing, and typewriters used monospaced fonts.
That's a very interesting point.
However, some quick research has revealed that there existed non-monospace typewriters at the time. See wikipedia.
This typewriter series offered four character widths, apparently, and was available from well before the period in question. I haven't really had a chance to go over the memos with a ruler, and I'm no typography expert, but it might be that this is the explanation.
(Still, I'll admit that the typography does look suspiciously good. If it turns out that the IBM Executive could do this in the early 70's, I'm very impressed!)
Also, I looked closely at the punctuation spacing in the 01 August 1972 memo, point 2 "[...] commander, [...]" and subject, "Bush, George W.1st Lt.3244754FG". On my PC at least, the spacing of the punctuation looks distinctly different from the PDF memo, under both palantino and TNR fonts. The serifs on the capital letters, particularly the W, also don't look much like the memo. If my PC is representative, the font isn't either of the ones proposed.
This is by no means an exhastive test, and again I'm no expert. I look forward to a typographical specialist's view.
1) Nader did not make the ballot in Oregon, which should strengthen Kerry against Bush quite a bit.
2) Oregon's polls show a trend of Kerry opening a gap, whereas Pennsylvania is trending towards a tie. (Of course, the site maintainer will be the first to say that these projections are not very reliable until October.)
3) Pennsylvania is more populous, which means more electoral votes at stake and more expense to reach the voters.
This Oregonian thinks the money is best spent in Pennsylvania.
And about bloody time, too. :-)
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? :-) Security is always hard for people to take seriously.
One approach is to ask if they would seriously consider leaving the front door of the business unlocked at night. The wireless AP is a doorway to your network that is unlocked, and that no one is watching. (Well, no one but you.)
Okay, it's locked, but with a crappy lock. Think of SSID as a little hook-and-eye gadget, not a real lock. WEP-64 is a little luggage lock; anyone with sidecutters and a strong hand can break it. WEP-128 is more like a decent padlock... but anyone with good boltcutters can get in. What you want is WPA or WPA2, which are more like a real deadbolt in a good metal door. Go get some samples from the hardware store, and pull 'em out of your pocket during your pitch. Ask them which lock they would like protecting their office.
Most importantly, look at the data on your network. Have you got any databases with names and SSNs? This could be a list of inhouse personnel, customers, or whomever. (Every US company has a list of employee SSNs somewhere, and odds are it's on the network.) Those files are a great target for identity thieves, a target with potentially better cash value to the thieves than your office equipment! Identity theft has been in the papers, they'll understand that.
If they come to understand that a little luggage lock is all that stands between their own SSN and identity theft, I expect they'll see the light.
Also, see if you can find a warsurvery site that lists AP's in your town or neighborhood. It'll let you prove that there are people looking for these things nearby. I had the good (?) fortune to actually chat with a wardriver at a 7-11 not half a mile from my network. Reporting that conversation got the partners attention. They already took security seriously, but that really brought it home.
Is the AP connected to your internal network behind your firewall?
:-)
If so, you should lay on the best encryption you have. If you can see other APs on the block, they can see you, too. You don't want someone to come in and rifle through your network, or release a worm or whatever. It is prudent to consider anything connected to the AP as untrusted.
The best solution, in my mind, is to put a firewall between your APs and your internal network, and allow only VPN access to your internal net. A few steps back in paranoia from that is to use the best security your hardware supports.
64-bit WEP is only one step up from an open AP. It'll keep the honest people honest, but will barely cause the dishonest people to break stride.
With a Centrino-based laptop, the boss's machine (almost certainly) has good enough hardware and OS to support WPA. With WinXP, it'll even roam between different netwoks reasonably well when he takes it home or wherever. If your AP doesn't support WPA, then at least use the highest level of WEP available to you... and consider getting a new AP that supports WPA2. (I think the Proxim Orinocos look good, but I haven't got one yet. Their AP-600 sounds about right for your use.)
If you're doing IT for this company, you need to be able to get your users' machines set up right, even the CEO's. Y'all only need to enter that nasty hex password once on each machine; it's not that big a burden and you can do it for him.
If he won't let you do it, tell him that it's your job to protect his company, and in order for the company to be protected this must be done. He can do it or you can, but it must be done.
If he still refuses, I'd either kill the AP (pulling the patch cable from the switch back in the server room should do nicely) or resign. This sounds extreme, but if he's not letting you do your job right, you probably don't want to work there anyway. Besides, he's probably not updating his virus scanner like you told him to, either.
I trust it won't come to that, though. If you lay the issues out for him and tell him that its his company's data (possibly financial data) at stake, I think he'll listen. Good luck!
Hmmm. Maybe it's a market niche for Armadillo Aerospace?
Woody loved the country, and did not fear to show its flaws so that it might be improved. Now, some folks might not call that patriotism, but I do.
I was recently delighted to hear that the tradition lives on. Rest in peace, Woody. Your songs are unchained, and good folks carry on your work.
I have good luck with the Maxtor One-Touch drives. The ones I have include Hi-Speed USB2 and FireWire400, and hold 250Gb. I'm using them as part of a backup rotation. (By the way, BackupExec 8.6 doesn't play very well with removable drives, but it can be made to work if you fuss over it enough. BE 9 is supposed to work much better.)
:-)
The drives are kinda bulky, too big to fit in all but the most spacious pockets. I happen to have a jacket with pockets spacious enough... almost. This resulted in a 1-meter drop test onto a concrete sidewalk when I was walking home one day. It put some nicks and gouges in the aluminum case, but otherwise did not hurt the drive.
My advice: Get a carrying case, too.