I remember reading here and there sometime back about a year ago that no one "in the business" expected the first two to get any since the trilogy is usually considered one work even though the three "books" (each one is actually two books) were written and released at different times.
Most accepted that PJ would get one for the last one after all were released.
Also, the movies were all filmed at once so you could consider the performance to be one big production simply because during production, it was one big contiguous filming. The fact that they were each released one year apart was merely a marketing decision more than anything else.
Any duplicate Oscars wouldn't have been fair since they were each part of one show.
I've always thought/. should mirror all stories and put those up instead of links. It seems to me that when you have the kind of readership that/. has, you have a responsibility to not legally DoS someone (which is what happens when a story gets linked).
It seems to me that this system is a lot like Linux in that it gives power to the people. If you really want to donate to the whack-a-mole project or whatever--you can.
Having to donate to a central group means that they will use the money in a way that they see fit and will likely not be totally compatible with the wishes of the donor. I disagree completely that that would be a better system.
Since it's patient data, I can't just broadcast it to the whole world.
No, you are right. And if you are using WEP, you aren't really securing that data right now.
Which would be more expensive for you--deploying a VPN solution to secure your wireless or being sued for $100 million for someone finding out that John Smith is really the father of Jane Doe's baby or that John Q. has AIDS?
Because the actual mean of encryption also allow you a certain control on who access your AP.
That is access control and not an encryption issue. Even still, WEP offers no such guarantee.
Step 1) Sniff wireless packets.
Step 2) Crack WEP keys while you eat your lunch or take a sip of a beverage depending on the level of WEP used.
Step 3) Clone MAC address.
Step 4) Conenct and surf/whatever until you get bored.
The security standard is mean to offer equivalent privacy a wire (which is not that private).
Agreed. It offers no such equivalency. By putting your packets airborne you immediately make sniffing super easy. It is how you deal with your data before and after it arrives to its destination that is important.
legacy equipment operate in a new environment sometimes takes a hack.
Not sure if you mean legacy wireless equipment or legacy computer/software equipment.
Either way, it doesn't matter becuase I am talking about new wireless equipment and computer equipment doesn't care about how its data packets get from point A to point B as long as they do. The only thing needed would be proper drivers.
There is no reason a file server can't have a VPN and use that as it's gateway. Any connecting clients (and the Apache server for that matter) can all communitcate over the VPN.
software which reguarly communicates between machines
Again, any and all of these machines can run a VPN client and use their VPN as their gateway.
I still don't understand why people get so wrapped up on encryption at the AP level. Wired switches and routers don't encrypt data. That is reserved for firewall/vpn devices which makes sense because the overhead associated (beyond security concerns) doesn't make sense to burden your transport mechanism.
What do people want encrypted? Their credit card numbers? Encryption of sensitive information like CC#'s is (should) be handled by SSL where the data is encrypted BEFORE it leaves the pc. No wireless encryption needed. Their e-mail? If they are sending that sensitive of information, they probably shouldn't use standard e-mail in the first place. They should encrypt a document and then e-mail it or encrypt the e-mail itself.
I am still yet to find a situation where encrypted wireless signals make sense for home or even business situations. If it is a business that is in need of securing their communications, they should use VPN's anyway.
I think it makes more sense for an additional independent circuitry to be installed on AP's that does VPN's and build into wireless cards a VPN client or include VPN software. Hell, even make an externally pluggable device that attaches to an AP so that it can be upgraded as future VPN's get stronger in encryption.
Leave AP's to do what the do best--serve wireless clients.
You missed the point. If a company comes to me and says, "We want to do credit card transactions for our web site. We only run Windows. Due to our network setup, the server would have to run in our DMZ unprotected by a firewall."
Not that this scenario is likely, but it _could_ happen. I would honestly laugh and then tell them they needed to find someone else willing to do something that was a monumentally bad idea.
The only thing that WOULD be good in my opinion is setting up liability legislation. If any contractor or software company KNOWINGLY designs and deploys a system whether hardware or software without making security a key design consideration in the interest of making the lowest bid, then they should be liable.
There comes a point of accountability when contractors should stand up and say, "I won't do this project if you won't fund the proper security design issues."
You wouldn't knowingly make cuts that would effect whether a system actually operates or not. Security shouldn't be any different.
I have turned down jobs before when I knew that what they asked was completely at odds with the client's best interest. I told them that and they understood.
Equally should agencies and companies be held liable if they knowingly deploy a system that is fundamentally insecure in the interest of just "getting it done." A bank would be held liable if they left their front doors wide open and their vault unlocked overnight. Leaving security unconsidered in computer and software systems should be treated equally if not more harshly.
No, just stating what the government thinks it is. If/when they enact laws covering broadband, you can bet they will use some standard definition such as this to define what services classify as broadband.
Any lawyers out there care to share the possibility of a libel suit here? Or is that what the current RH/SCO case is about? I can't remember. Too much litigation going on.
Sun chose what they want to support and that is all they are including. There is nothing to stop you or anyone else from adding them in. Don't call Sun for support on them. If they included them, you would expect them to provide support wouldn't you?
No, putting more peripherals onboard is not a good idea. Moreover, putting wifi onboard is an extremely bad idea.
There are many reasons but I can give you at least one--noise. I operate a WISP and one of our customers dropped off our network and it took me at least a half hour to figure out what happened. He put his brand new Centrino laptop into scan mode and it knocked his CPE offline due to side channel noise.
Just what do you think will happen to your 2.4 ghz cordless phone when every apartment above, beside and below you are blasting 2.4 ghz with their new computers?
This is an attempt for Intel to cash in on the wireless boom without stopping to think about the consequences because quite frankly they don't have to since 2.4 ghz is unlicensed.
And now we all get to witness the downside to deregulation of wireless frequency. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that I don't have to answer the FCC as long as I play within some power requirements. I do not always sleep well knowing I have no protection either from people like Intel.
If you see a huge gap in the market, stop complaining and fill it. There is little that is more silly than someone that complains about a problem yet offers no solutions or desire to find a solution.
Complaining does nothing to solve a problem. It only adds to it.
No, I don't work for Red Hat. I have nothing to do with them except for running RH9 on my home station. I just don't have a problem paying for it since they are putting the effort into it.
As for support, I will get the RHN and that is sufficient for me. My time is important and I like having an easy way to install updates. I am sure other ways are easy but this one happens to be easy as well.
I dunno about now but three years ago I was trying to get a sendmail (don't ask) box up and running for a client and was a complete newbie to Linux. I purchase a one time incident for like $250 and spent about 3 hours on the phone with them. They put me on the phone with their e-mail admin and he helped me get it up and running.
I will probably fork out the dough for the enterprise version for my home machine simply because I think Red Hat is great at what they do, play nice as a community member and produce quite a great product as far as I can tell.
There is no louder way to vote than with your wallet. As for me, I vote for Linux and Red Hat seems like a great company to push for. Don't forget they didn't hesitate to fire back at SCO. I will gladly help fund that effort.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading here and there sometime back about a year ago that no one "in the business" expected the first two to get any since the trilogy is usually considered one work even though the three "books" (each one is actually two books) were written and released at different times.
Most accepted that PJ would get one for the last one after all were released.
Also, the movies were all filmed at once so you could consider the performance to be one big production simply because during production, it was one big contiguous filming. The fact that they were each released one year apart was merely a marketing decision more than anything else.
Any duplicate Oscars wouldn't have been fair since they were each part of one show.
I've always thought /. should mirror all stories and put those up instead of links. It seems to me that when you have the kind of readership that /. has, you have a responsibility to not legally DoS someone (which is what happens when a story gets linked).
It seems to me that this system is a lot like Linux in that it gives power to the people. If you really want to donate to the whack-a-mole project or whatever--you can.
Having to donate to a central group means that they will use the money in a way that they see fit and will likely not be totally compatible with the wishes of the donor. I disagree completely that that would be a better system.
Since it's patient data, I can't just broadcast it to the whole world.
No, you are right. And if you are using WEP, you aren't really securing that data right now.
Which would be more expensive for you--deploying a VPN solution to secure your wireless or being sued for $100 million for someone finding out that John Smith is really the father of Jane Doe's baby or that John Q. has AIDS?
That might be the most logical reason to use WEP that I have ever heard--raise entry barrier to decrease intrusion attempts.
I guess if everyone used it then the playing field is level again, though.
First, if there's no security built into the AP, anyone can get on your network.
Not if your wireless network is segmented off by the VPN server.
Because the actual mean of encryption also allow you a certain control on who access your AP.
That is access control and not an encryption issue. Even still, WEP offers no such guarantee.
Step 1) Sniff wireless packets.
Step 2) Crack WEP keys while you eat your lunch or take a sip of a beverage depending on the level of WEP used.
Step 3) Clone MAC address.
Step 4) Conenct and surf/whatever until you get bored.
The security standard is mean to offer equivalent privacy a wire (which is not that private).
Agreed. It offers no such equivalency. By putting your packets airborne you immediately make sniffing super easy. It is how you deal with your data before and after it arrives to its destination that is important.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this was a discussion about new encryption standards to replace a fundamentally flawed mechanism.
WEP may as well stand for Worthless Equivalency Protocol because it is (worthless).
Don't confuse the issue with what is/isn't available with the fact that what IS available doesn't work.
legacy equipment operate in a new environment sometimes takes a hack.
Not sure if you mean legacy wireless equipment or legacy computer/software equipment.
Either way, it doesn't matter becuase I am talking about new wireless equipment and computer equipment doesn't care about how its data packets get from point A to point B as long as they do. The only thing needed would be proper drivers.
and doesn't require a piece of other software.
As opposed to building VPN clients onto a wireless card and not requiring any additional software?
There. Good enough?
No.
you use a file server
There is no reason a file server can't have a VPN and use that as it's gateway. Any connecting clients (and the Apache server for that matter) can all communitcate over the VPN.
software which reguarly communicates between machines
Again, any and all of these machines can run a VPN client and use their VPN as their gateway.
Next.
I still don't understand why people get so wrapped up on encryption at the AP level. Wired switches and routers don't encrypt data. That is reserved for firewall/vpn devices which makes sense because the overhead associated (beyond security concerns) doesn't make sense to burden your transport mechanism.
What do people want encrypted? Their credit card numbers? Encryption of sensitive information like CC#'s is (should) be handled by SSL where the data is encrypted BEFORE it leaves the pc. No wireless encryption needed. Their e-mail? If they are sending that sensitive of information, they probably shouldn't use standard e-mail in the first place. They should encrypt a document and then e-mail it or encrypt the e-mail itself.
I am still yet to find a situation where encrypted wireless signals make sense for home or even business situations. If it is a business that is in need of securing their communications, they should use VPN's anyway.
I think it makes more sense for an additional independent circuitry to be installed on AP's that does VPN's and build into wireless cards a VPN client or include VPN software. Hell, even make an externally pluggable device that attaches to an AP so that it can be upgraded as future VPN's get stronger in encryption.
Leave AP's to do what the do best--serve wireless clients.
You missed the point. If a company comes to me and says, "We want to do credit card transactions for our web site. We only run Windows. Due to our network setup, the server would have to run in our DMZ unprotected by a firewall."
Not that this scenario is likely, but it _could_ happen. I would honestly laugh and then tell them they needed to find someone else willing to do something that was a monumentally bad idea.
The only thing that WOULD be good in my opinion is setting up liability legislation. If any contractor or software company KNOWINGLY designs and deploys a system whether hardware or software without making security a key design consideration in the interest of making the lowest bid, then they should be liable.
There comes a point of accountability when contractors should stand up and say, "I won't do this project if you won't fund the proper security design issues."
You wouldn't knowingly make cuts that would effect whether a system actually operates or not. Security shouldn't be any different.
I have turned down jobs before when I knew that what they asked was completely at odds with the client's best interest. I told them that and they understood.
Equally should agencies and companies be held liable if they knowingly deploy a system that is fundamentally insecure in the interest of just "getting it done." A bank would be held liable if they left their front doors wide open and their vault unlocked overnight. Leaving security unconsidered in computer and software systems should be treated equally if not more harshly.
If there isn't (and there probably is--google time), there should be an annual "Geek quote of the year." This one would easily snag #1.
No, just stating what the government thinks it is. If/when they enact laws covering broadband, you can bet they will use some standard definition such as this to define what services classify as broadband.
The US government defines broadband as 200kbps.
n fo
http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/broadband.htm#i
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps1 67/index.html
Argue with Cisco and not me.
One Cisco 12000 router can easliy move 320Gbps of data. As another poster noted, this kind of capacity is meant to handle many nodes at full speed.
Any lawyers out there care to share the possibility of a libel suit here? Or is that what the current RH/SCO case is about? I can't remember. Too much litigation going on.
Sun chose what they want to support and that is all they are including. There is nothing to stop you or anyone else from adding them in. Don't call Sun for support on them. If they included them, you would expect them to provide support wouldn't you?
No, putting more peripherals onboard is not a good idea. Moreover, putting wifi onboard is an extremely bad idea.
There are many reasons but I can give you at least one--noise. I operate a WISP and one of our customers dropped off our network and it took me at least a half hour to figure out what happened. He put his brand new Centrino laptop into scan mode and it knocked his CPE offline due to side channel noise.
Just what do you think will happen to your 2.4 ghz cordless phone when every apartment above, beside and below you are blasting 2.4 ghz with their new computers?
This is an attempt for Intel to cash in on the wireless boom without stopping to think about the consequences because quite frankly they don't have to since 2.4 ghz is unlicensed.
And now we all get to witness the downside to deregulation of wireless frequency. Don't get me wrong, I love the fact that I don't have to answer the FCC as long as I play within some power requirements. I do not always sleep well knowing I have no protection either from people like Intel.
If you see a huge gap in the market, stop complaining and fill it. There is little that is more silly than someone that complains about a problem yet offers no solutions or desire to find a solution.
Complaining does nothing to solve a problem. It only adds to it.
No, I don't work for Red Hat. I have nothing to do with them except for running RH9 on my home station. I just don't have a problem paying for it since they are putting the effort into it.
As for support, I will get the RHN and that is sufficient for me. My time is important and I like having an easy way to install updates. I am sure other ways are easy but this one happens to be easy as well.
I dunno about now but three years ago I was trying to get a sendmail (don't ask) box up and running for a client and was a complete newbie to Linux. I purchase a one time incident for like $250 and spent about 3 hours on the phone with them. They put me on the phone with their e-mail admin and he helped me get it up and running.
I will probably fork out the dough for the enterprise version for my home machine simply because I think Red Hat is great at what they do, play nice as a community member and produce quite a great product as far as I can tell.
There is no louder way to vote than with your wallet. As for me, I vote for Linux and Red Hat seems like a great company to push for. Don't forget they didn't hesitate to fire back at SCO. I will gladly help fund that effort.