Pool logs of failed SSH logins on a public site. Allow whitelisting on your site for trusted IPs. If a lot of people see failed logins from the same IPs, use that as the source for a list of new iptables/hosts.deny/whatever ban lists.
Obviously it's a bit more complicated than this. For one thing, you wouldn't want people joe-jobbing shared hosting services, etc. This is very analagous to the problem of spam and RBLs. Still, if this problem grows to the point where it's wasting serious bandwidth, this would be a way to mitigate it.
On the other hand, in most cases strong passwords and a non-standard port number are more than sufficient. In five years I've never seen an attempt on the ports I use. For a high profile site, where you're likely to come under closer scrutiny, you would probably have a firewall/vpn configured as well.
Supposedly Congress does have a revision control system. But nobody uses it. Seems like it would be easy to put it online, which would tie in with Obama's transparency pledge.
Interesting. I'd thought Google's revenue streams centered around providing the most accurate and relevant search results. Looks like they've punted on that. So there are opportunities for new search providers after all.
In fact, this could go a long way to explaining why they haven't gotten serious about semantic search, which would be the next giant leap in relevance. it's because they'd rather give you pseudo-relevant (but profitable) answers first. This is why when you're searching for reviews on a product, you get sales crap instead. And it also explains why the count the whole page, even navigation/spam crap, as relevant, rather than grouping articles/sections/comments as logical units.
...that's all you had to say! If we can't trust the judgment, decency, and foresight of George Michael, who can we trust? The man is a latter day Sodomon. Solomon. Whatever.
Let's go back to dialup. That will be so much better for Hollywood et al. And obviously what buys more Cristal for illiterate scumbags with hot tubs in their stretch Hummers is of Paramount Fucking Concern.
The survey was commissioned by the Wines of Chile? One wonders how rigorous this study was, especially given they don't mention asking the obvious alternative group, men. It sounds almost like an Onion article.
It does match my experience, but in general men aren't that great at secrets either-- we just don't find most gossip as interesting. I, for one, forget most of it almost as fast as my gf tells me... Still: never tell a girl something you don't want people talking about the next day. Women are a lot like Facebook, in a way... you don't get to complain about them doing what they do.
The summary is inaccurate, but if Amazon caves in to the WSJ, don't you think the rest of the publishers would want the same treatment?
"Amazon, I hope you betrayed enough of your customers for everybody!"
Oh, and one more thing. Kindle would be able to link the names of the subscribers to the specific articles read. Amazon has proven that they cannot be trusted, so we must expect this.
They could probably get a pretty good idea of who betrays confidences, gossips, etc. A lot of people would pay for that service-- really, even an "Ear Burning" notification when your name comes up in voice or text conversations. Google could deploy that by Tuesday if they wanted.
Oh, but I guess there are still a few of us who would see a downside to that.
You know, that Captain's Log thing always bothered me. He always starts of by identifying himself and speaking the Star Date. His recorder doesn't know who he is? It doesn't know the time? Pointless busywork. I guess Star Trek is a Manager future.
Micrsosoft wants to put a cluster of always-on cameras in my home? With facial recognition? And a microphone? Connected to the Internet and MS headquarters by a high speed link?
Microsoft, the company with the security standards of Animal House, the restraint and ethics of a Cthulhu god?
Clearly, the only decent thing to do is to resurrect the Neanderthal species as soon as we can reconstruct their DNA, then pass the Earth into their custody, along with a bashful apology etched as the introductory paragraph of our Rosetta stones.
I doubt the developers are pissed. I was in a UT clan with one of them in '99 or so, and while he was mostly a nice guy, he was constantly bragging about how every car in their parking lot cost $250K, they were swimming in pussy, etc. Don't know how long that standard of living lasted, but if I got paid like that for producing nothing for ten years, I'd tell myself it was a good run... Rock star developers indeed.
It's obvious to intelligent people familiar with technology that tech advancements can generally-- perhaps always-- be used in pro-overdog/state (surveillance, intimidation, security, mass-murder) and pro-underdog/individual (whistleblowing, crypto, terrorism) ways. Note that even this dichotomy is not morally obvious-- techniques from both sides of the state/individual axis can be what used for good or ill. Some of the people I would trust most came from the military and are either still there, or work for weapons contractors. The more I learn, the more I doubt.
The question is, how universal and balanced is this fairly obvious trend? Lately, the state (I'm speaking in general, world-wide) seems to have more and more of an advantage. But it's quite possible that this is a short-term trend, that the authoritarian types will grab too much and lose their balance, tipping themselves over; this seems to be the case with monopoly businesses which crush their innovative competitors (think banks, telcos; even Microsoft would be probably be a footnote if it had succeeded in its impulse to smother the Internet in its crib). With greed-based personalities, it's not enough to win, everybody else must lose. But the biggest winners, in the long run, are on top of a pile of winners.
Okay, specifics: until a couple days ago, I have been an enthusiastic of peer to peer semantic web markup technologies. I daresay it's the next major leap beyond Google, the only thing I can see which could unseat Google from its throne. But the way things are going now-- Obama mostly kowtowing to Bush's interests (albeit perhaps more competently), most of the Western states heading in the same direction, NO state (outside of Scandinavia, a bit) resisting this tide much-- gives me pause. How much more control would states and business have if they could easily know/search/prove the *intent* behind every search? Hand in hand with semantic search would come a way of indicating your profile-- your identity, affinities, trusted sources, and preferences. It was one of my fondest dreams, but in today's context, it's too horrible to contemplate.
There aren't too many individuals, and probably no organizations, that I'd trust with that kind of power. In fact, I think that's the beauty of the U.S. Constitution-- flawed as it may be, as weird as I find it to trust almost religiously a document composed by wealthy white men who had never seen a light bulb-- most of it is written to *limit* the power of any entity. It was progressive for its time; it's impossibly radical for ours. A triumph of reason and compromise by the Schneiers, Stallmans, Pauls, and Torvalds of that age. In other words, by people willing, in principle, to be governed by the same standards as they ask of their neighbors.
I fear it will never happen again. Certainly not without a populace equipped with the tools of logic, statistics, empathy, courage, and doubt. Therefore-- I don't know. Do what you can, where you can. Anybody with more specific ideas, I'm listening.
Well, like I said, it was a "whatever, fine" type deal for me until they wouldn't accept payment. I found out about the issue when I was ~1000 miles away. I'm always annoyed when a business doesn't want my money.
Long ago, I used to rent from maybe a couple times a month. One day a roommate grabbed my card and rented a couple movies with it. He returned them late; the late fee was something like $20. I wasn't aware of this, and obviously, they didn't check ID; fine, okay, whatever. The next time I went to rent from them, it was at a store in a different city; I'd moved. They wouldn't rent to me because I hadn't paid the fee. I told them I'd pay now. They said they couldn't take the payment for another store. I called the original store to pay with a credit card; no, they couldn't do that either. I had to physically pay, in cash, at the original store, for their mistake, or I couldn't rent from Blockbuster again. That was something like ten years ago, and I've never given them another dollar. Stupid companies like that can't survive in an open market. What do they think they are, a telco?
Slashdot Mirror
Pool logs of failed SSH logins on a public site. Allow whitelisting on your site for trusted IPs. If a lot of people see failed logins from the same IPs, use that as the source for a list of new iptables/hosts.deny/whatever ban lists.
Obviously it's a bit more complicated than this. For one thing, you wouldn't want people joe-jobbing shared hosting services, etc. This is very analagous to the problem of spam and RBLs. Still, if this problem grows to the point where it's wasting serious bandwidth, this would be a way to mitigate it.
On the other hand, in most cases strong passwords and a non-standard port number are more than sufficient. In five years I've never seen an attempt on the ports I use. For a high profile site, where you're likely to come under closer scrutiny, you would probably have a firewall/vpn configured as well.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=179029&cid=14838389
Supposedly Congress does have a revision control system. But nobody uses it. Seems like it would be easy to put it online, which would tie in with Obama's transparency pledge.
Interesting. I'd thought Google's revenue streams centered around providing the most accurate and relevant search results. Looks like they've punted on that. So there are opportunities for new search providers after all.
In fact, this could go a long way to explaining why they haven't gotten serious about semantic search, which would be the next giant leap in relevance. it's because they'd rather give you pseudo-relevant (but profitable) answers first. This is why when you're searching for reviews on a product, you get sales crap instead. And it also explains why the count the whole page, even navigation/spam crap, as relevant, rather than grouping articles/sections/comments as logical units.
At last we can breathe a little easier, secure in the knowledge that flying cockroaches are watching over us at all times.
I have no problem with this. Lower premiums for people who are not idiots. This is the way things should work.
Hahaha. What makes you think they'll lower premiums for anybody? When has that happened? It's not like they can prove you won't text, after all.
...that's all you had to say! If we can't trust the judgment, decency, and foresight of George Michael, who can we trust? The man is a latter day Sodomon. Solomon. Whatever.
Let's go back to dialup. That will be so much better for Hollywood et al. And obviously what buys more Cristal for illiterate scumbags with hot tubs in their stretch Hummers is of Paramount Fucking Concern.
Should be: MIT Project "Gaydar" Shakes Privacy Assumptions of Stupid Twats Who Still Won't Care
The survey was commissioned by the Wines of Chile? One wonders how rigorous this study was, especially given they don't mention asking the obvious alternative group, men. It sounds almost like an Onion article.
It does match my experience, but in general men aren't that great at secrets either-- we just don't find most gossip as interesting. I, for one, forget most of it almost as fast as my gf tells me... Still: never tell a girl something you don't want people talking about the next day. Women are a lot like Facebook, in a way... you don't get to complain about them doing what they do.
'However, it is the use of the "melee" weapons such as the crowbar, axe, chainsaw and Samurai sword which inflict the most damage.'
That's odd, I think I'd rather be hit by a crowbar than blasted with a shotgun. Oh well, only one way to find out.
It's only crazy if he's not infallible.
If we had 33.625 times as many cameras, ALL the robbers would have been captured.
The summary is inaccurate, but if Amazon caves in to the WSJ, don't you think the rest of the publishers would want the same treatment?
"Amazon, I hope you betrayed enough of your customers for everybody!"
Oh, and one more thing. Kindle would be able to link the names of the subscribers to the specific articles read. Amazon has proven that they cannot be trusted, so we must expect this.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1311164&displaytype=linkview&lastnode_id=1311164
Exactly the same thing.
I said EXACTLY!
[wanders off, muttering and picking bugs out of beard]
They could probably get a pretty good idea of who betrays confidences, gossips, etc. A lot of people would pay for that service-- really, even an "Ear Burning" notification when your name comes up in voice or text conversations. Google could deploy that by Tuesday if they wanted.
Oh, but I guess there are still a few of us who would see a downside to that.
Profit Threatening is not a crime (yet).
You know, that Captain's Log thing always bothered me. He always starts of by identifying himself and speaking the Star Date. His recorder doesn't know who he is? It doesn't know the time? Pointless busywork. I guess Star Trek is a Manager future.
Get your hands off my junk!
Hold on a minute, hoss.
Micrsosoft wants to put a cluster of always-on cameras in my home? With facial recognition? And a microphone? Connected to the Internet and MS headquarters by a high speed link?
Microsoft, the company with the security standards of Animal House, the restraint and ethics of a Cthulhu god?
*ponders*
Will there be chicks?
Mu? Meh.
Clearly, the only decent thing to do is to resurrect the Neanderthal species as soon as we can reconstruct their DNA, then pass the Earth into their custody, along with a bashful apology etched as the introductory paragraph of our Rosetta stones.
I doubt the developers are pissed. I was in a UT clan with one of them in '99 or so, and while he was mostly a nice guy, he was constantly bragging about how every car in their parking lot cost $250K, they were swimming in pussy, etc. Don't know how long that standard of living lasted, but if I got paid like that for producing nothing for ten years, I'd tell myself it was a good run... Rock star developers indeed.
It's obvious to intelligent people familiar with technology that tech advancements can generally-- perhaps always-- be used in pro-overdog/state (surveillance, intimidation, security, mass-murder) and pro-underdog/individual (whistleblowing, crypto, terrorism) ways. Note that even this dichotomy is not morally obvious-- techniques from both sides of the state/individual axis can be what used for good or ill. Some of the people I would trust most came from the military and are either still there, or work for weapons contractors. The more I learn, the more I doubt.
The question is, how universal and balanced is this fairly obvious trend? Lately, the state (I'm speaking in general, world-wide) seems to have more and more of an advantage. But it's quite possible that this is a short-term trend, that the authoritarian types will grab too much and lose their balance, tipping themselves over; this seems to be the case with monopoly businesses which crush their innovative competitors (think banks, telcos; even Microsoft would be probably be a footnote if it had succeeded in its impulse to smother the Internet in its crib). With greed-based personalities, it's not enough to win, everybody else must lose. But the biggest winners, in the long run, are on top of a pile of winners.
Okay, specifics: until a couple days ago, I have been an enthusiastic of peer to peer semantic web markup technologies. I daresay it's the next major leap beyond Google, the only thing I can see which could unseat Google from its throne. But the way things are going now-- Obama mostly kowtowing to Bush's interests (albeit perhaps more competently), most of the Western states heading in the same direction, NO state (outside of Scandinavia, a bit) resisting this tide much-- gives me pause. How much more control would states and business have if they could easily know/search/prove the *intent* behind every search? Hand in hand with semantic search would come a way of indicating your profile-- your identity, affinities, trusted sources, and preferences. It was one of my fondest dreams, but in today's context, it's too horrible to contemplate.
There aren't too many individuals, and probably no organizations, that I'd trust with that kind of power. In fact, I think that's the beauty of the U.S. Constitution-- flawed as it may be, as weird as I find it to trust almost religiously a document composed by wealthy white men who had never seen a light bulb-- most of it is written to *limit* the power of any entity. It was progressive for its time; it's impossibly radical for ours. A triumph of reason and compromise by the Schneiers, Stallmans, Pauls, and Torvalds of that age. In other words, by people willing, in principle, to be governed by the same standards as they ask of their neighbors.
I fear it will never happen again. Certainly not without a populace equipped with the tools of logic, statistics, empathy, courage, and doubt. Therefore-- I don't know. Do what you can, where you can. Anybody with more specific ideas, I'm listening.
Well, like I said, it was a "whatever, fine" type deal for me until they wouldn't accept payment. I found out about the issue when I was ~1000 miles away. I'm always annoyed when a business doesn't want my money.
Long ago, I used to rent from maybe a couple times a month. One day a roommate grabbed my card and rented a couple movies with it. He returned them late; the late fee was something like $20. I wasn't aware of this, and obviously, they didn't check ID; fine, okay, whatever. The next time I went to rent from them, it was at a store in a different city; I'd moved. They wouldn't rent to me because I hadn't paid the fee. I told them I'd pay now. They said they couldn't take the payment for another store. I called the original store to pay with a credit card; no, they couldn't do that either. I had to physically pay, in cash, at the original store, for their mistake, or I couldn't rent from Blockbuster again. That was something like ten years ago, and I've never given them another dollar. Stupid companies like that can't survive in an open market. What do they think they are, a telco?
Now all you have to do is make your own replacement battery.