Some things about the article seriously bother me, like "creating nitrogen" and "nitrogen gas is known to destroy ozone". If the most common gas in our atmosphere destroys ozone then why does it exist at all? Nitrogen (not as a gas) is important in the depletion process but not as the article implies...
Before anyone claims that humans are no longer the cause for the ozone hole, please realize the depletion was caused because of CFCs. Ozone is depleted as a result of many things, CFC is one of the key components and is a non-natural factor. The increased UV and polar vortices that were a result of the solar activity along with a colder winter increased the depletion, but, it would never have happened at above natural levels without CFCs. Please read: A simple explanation that I posted a while back and a more complete explanation on how the ozone hole is formed.
These chemical processes are extremely well known: We know that CFCs are the cause, we know that there are a lot of them near the ozone layer, we know they are man made. Therefore, we know we are the cause. All that these researchers found out is that these conditions will speed up the process, not that they are the cause of the process.
It is unfortunate that even with the CFC ban it will take 100-200 years for the ozone hole to repair itself to pre-industrial era levels...
This is because of climate conditions that happen only in the poles: a) vortices that concentrate ozone and CFCs and prevent difusion of the damaged area with the rest of the ozone layer and b) extra cold temperatures that freeze nitrogen from the atmosphere thus allowing the CFCs to interact (nitrogen is a slows the process). These are both more prevalent in the southern pole rather than the northern pole. If we had a major hole over the northern pole there would be a lot more damage since the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere are much more populated than the higher latitudes of the south.
I don't know who they talked to at Virginia Tech, but we have wireless, the school provides web pages, we do get student discounted computers, some courses do have streamable audio/video, honestly can't remember if we get network access in the dorm lounges but I know there are ports there so I'd think yes, they do provide multimedia equipment, we do have classes in emerging technologies, and WUVT (the local campus radio station) does in fact stream on the net http://www.wuvt.vt.edu/. So we definitely deserve to be a little better off than they claim.
I remember cleaning a trojan/virus/backdoor off a friend's computer a few years ago that allowed this among other things. It's not like this is new, maybe because this is all it does (dunno if that's all it does) it get's on the front of/. I love slashdot but this is not frontpage newsworthy especially in the wording that was used.
As far as I can tell people will always be file sharing, so why don't we come up with a responsible network that gives some incentive to the sharers to be responsible. Why is P2P so good? Simply put, high availability. Beyond that low cost to the owners of the material since they don't have to own a lot of servers and whatnot. So we need a network that can track sharers trades and charge them a nominal fee (read much less than current costs). I haven't seen much in the way of this but I did google across a relatively young and in the works network called bitmunk. It's still in beta and whatnot, but they seem pretty serious about all this, I even talked to to a programmer there and bothered him for some technical questions and he seemed pretty receptive to my comments.
They seem to have the right idea, no DRM but they do have watermarks so they can track you down and cancel your account if you start sharing elsewhere. Maybe this doesnt' solve sharing among friends but, that's probably not a solvable problem, iTunes doesn't even solve this.
Of course all this means we have to return the copyrights to the artists or someone more responsible to the RIAA.
My 2 cents: check out the network give them ideas, they seem pretty bright and eager to please.
I didn't even realize there was a Myranet, I just misspelled Myrinet. It sounds like you have more first hand experience than I do but according to the numbers Mellanox claims (4.5us) and the numbers that Myrinet claims (6.3 s), Infiniband, at least on paper looks less latent.
~3.5 times speedup for ~2.3 times the processors, it's not all in the # of processors. Tell you what, if someone builds a 36TFlop machine with the interconnects that VT uses drop me an email, I'll buy you a pizza. Infiniband is great stuff but it's a somewhat more generalized networking technology, unless you do something crazy with the network topology you're going to hit bandwidth limitations, we're talking about math problems that easily require terrabytes of message passing.
1) The VT cluster will probably never beat the EarthSim. Why? Because the interconnects (fancy network connections) are so specialized on EarthSim that it will tromp any off the shelf system. Furthermore everything about the EarthSim computers are built to be clustered as they are. VT uses infiniband which is faster and lower latency than Myranet or the other common cluster interconnects, which is part of the reason why it kicks so much butt, but the systems are still pretty much off the shelf and will never be able to beat EarthSim. Of course VT does for millions upon millions less and much more cost effectively, so even if it's not #1, in many ways it is the best. 2) Google's cluster is (probably) a much more distributed system, it would probably take a severe beating in trying to do the LinPack benchmarks that they use to rank the top500. The algorithm requires a lot of data passing, it probably doesn't excel at low latency or even high bandwidth (>16Gb/s) data passing. That's just an educated guess though, AFAIK that information is pretty well secreted. In raw processing power under one roof Google probably has it made, but since most problems (not all, read: *@home) in science and math require lots of data passing between nodes Google will probably get trounced in the top500.
I had similar problems with a Rev. A TiBook and so I sent an email to my Uni's local apple rep and he hooked me up with someone in the quality assurance dept, they got me a replacement AluBook (much nicer). Despite having so many problems, AppleCare was, in general, very fast, polite, and helpful.
Yeah maybe you go to that Other School (UVA for people not in the know). But at VT, where I am an upperclassman, I have not once turned in any CS assignment that has not been done in gcc or Linux.
There is a decent sized group windows fanboys around but they're here just for cannon fodder;).
Symmetric keys use XORs are permutations to encrypt and are generally faster.
It should read. What I said made no sense grammatically and made even less sense technically. Thank you for taking my mistake so literal. It should read: Symmetric ciphers use XORs AND permutation to encrypt and are generally faster. I was actually speaking of DES when I said this I figured RC4 was ver similar and it is in many respects.
I hear that at least the BIOS is RC4 encrypted. This attack would not work on decrypting most modern symmetric ciphers since all encryption/decryption is constant time. Actually symmetric ciphers are much more secure than the Public/Private Key (per keylength 7kbit RSA ~ 256 AES) . In fact with PGP and I would guess SSL is the same they only use the Private Public key encryption to securely agree upon a symmetric key to encrypt the data with. Symmetric keys use XORs are permutations to encrypt and are generally faster.
Yup you're right, looked over my notes again and it's 8 byte plaintext (it's only been 6 months:( I think I am getting forgetful in my old age ). Can you find a link to Matsui's paper?
I might be wrong but the way I understand it is you can narrow down the keyspace with less blocks then it takes to solve? I admit I haven't read the papers only short bits from a textbook by Trappe & Washington (it tends to focus more on the number theoretical systems). I know airsnort takes a huge ammount information but 64 terrabytes is a bit much.
(by your calculations it should take around 56 Tb, since the plaintext is not 8 bytes but 7 (1 byte of parity bits), though that's just me being picky
Please feel free to drop me a line and let me know the errors of my ways or send me links to these papers since I could only find references to Matsuis's paper
I didn't make any reference to the size of the key just at the joke that DES is, just the joke that DES has become. Independent of the size (except for small values), differential analysis should allow you to reach a key faster than trying all of the possibilites. There's plenty of known plaintext if you know the FS being used which makes things that much easier.
DES has been replaced by Rijndael (AES)in the govt. Or at least that's what's supposed to happen, DeS is no longer secure enough. I would bet that with the huge ammounts of data stored on a disk differential techniques would make it a snap to get the key. What's worse is an easy to crack crypto system that you believe in is worse than no crypto system at all since you're likely to store data on it that you might not store otherwise.
I haven't read the aforementioned article, but I will check it out. My experiences may just say the same thing as they say (or maybe not). So sorry if this is repeated.
WEP is a joke unless you keep rekeying connection, which depending on how many packets you throw across the connection may or may not be realistically possible. (In many cases I'd guess not)
Choosing a secure SSID as someone mention won't get you very far if you're running in infrastructure mode since it broadcasts that. And if someone knows you have an AP then they can scan channel by channel until tcpdump picks something up and then you really don't need an SSID.
IPSec is a widely accessible protocol that gives the ability to encrypt communications and do authentication (in much the same way that ssh does it). IPSec is available on many platforms: Linux, Windows 2k/XP, BSD, (I think Mac OSX does), and most of them support it natively (ie no slow userspace daemons to run).
Using the authentication you can allow only authorized clients to connect, by allowing only IPSec packets through your router and then let IPSec do the rest. IPSec also does rekeying for the encryption so it's much safer than WEP.
Okay listen up if you don't know enough about Unix to know that a lot of Unices use DES ecnryption to do passwords(which allows for only 8 chars), then you shouldn't be fucking with CLI, or at least don't expect things from it that aren't stated. Most Unices still use (or provided compatibility for) DES hashes as opposed to MD5. Apple is not that far behind the curve give it up, it's a stupid topic. The people who should know about security will already know all this and the people who dont really don't need to worry this much about security.
The GUI for all of this seems to make it clear tat it's only worrying about the first 8 chars.
Does this mean you're gonna put out the next episode of Geeks in Space?
In a little bit more seriousness, congrats to you too if she says yes. And on the off chance if she says no then you'll have a quarter-million people willing to buy you a few rounds of your favourite liquor.
Although I am sure that other chemicals can break down ozone, CFCS are the most common and best at doing it because they are lighter than air and they normally DO NOT react with anything around us (at or near sea level). These two properties make them fly up high into the ozone layer. The non-reactant portion is what made these chemicals so great and so unthought of as causing problems. To destroy ozone molecules you have to have some very specific conditions:
Uv-light forces the reaction breaks molecules down and what not
chlorine, as in Chloro-Flouro-Carbon (CFC), these kill ozone
no nitrogen, this is because nitrogen stops the process, being a noble gas it doesn't react too much
Okay so now how do you get these conditions, and why is there no northern ozone hole? Well we have uv-light and aplenty so that's not a problem. The first issue is gathering a lot of CFCs (and ozone) into one place, this is taken care of by the Antarctic vortex. The vortex is there during certain months of the year and it builds up a lot CFCs and Ozone into a small space. In the northern polar regions it isn't so prominent because there are landmarks to break up these winds, however there are some weaker ones that are present in the north. Okay, we got ozone and CFC and light, now we need to get rid of the nitrogen. This is handled by formation of nitrogen clouds, which are clouds that are really cold and really high up that contain droplets of condensed nitrogen, and now the nitrogen is gone in the atmosphere and CFC havoc may occur. This doesn't happen in the north because the north pole is much warmer (or at least enough to prevent this). Now the scary thing is if we get a cold winter in the north then a big hole can form in the north, and if you look at a globe there are millions upons millions more people in the upper northen latitudes than there are in the southernmost latitudes. And if you use the following statistic, -1% ozone layer = +2% UV-light on the surface of the Earth = +4% skin cancer, which is sorta bad when applied to cities like London and Quebec and what not (yes these ozone holes can affect huge areas).
Now before someone tries to beat me down for using pseudo science, my mother is on the DIAL team which is a NASA group that measures the ozone hole using a LIDAR(Laser detection) system. These were the people who went to confirm the ozone hole when NASA originally thought the TOMS satellite was malfunctioning because it had almost no readings in the south pole for ozone. I may have bungled some of the facts so if I did please correct me. I think most of these chemical processes have been tested in a lab so they are empirical evidence.
As for the the stabilizing of the ozone I can only make a few conjectures: 1) the most likely IMHO, the temperature in the southern pole haven't been as cold lately, I know I have been going through some wacky yearly climate cahnges here, 2)the Earth is mucuh more resilient than we like to think, or 3) We're missing something that is there and it may not be only the CFCs or it could be a natural cyclical event, but I have trouble believing it is natural with all the scientific evidence I have seen. There are still too many CFCs in the ozone layer for it start repairing, and due to the resilience and the near-non-reactance of CFCs they will be around for another 60-100 years, before the ozone makes a come back and another 100 after that to repair itself.
My grandfather was procurement officer for the Viking I program at Langley, they had a a reuninon party which I attended. Everyone kept remarking about how everyone worked together then and how now it's a giant rat race, everyone competing against each other. It's a good point to observe, the companies are very cutthroat now adays, and don't cooperate as much as they used to. Look at the unit conversion (or lack thereof) that caused the probe to crash. Lack of cooperation.
Patrik -------------
Just your ordinary BOFH:) http://pjbutler.dhs.org/me
Slashdot Mirror
No, they do create aerosols, but not CFCs, and some of those aersols help speed up the interaction of CFCs with ozone. CFCs are man made.
i splay_article=vn504ozoneed
http://earthbulletin.amnh.org/D/3/3/
http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/search.php?d
Patrik
Some things about the article seriously bother me, like "creating nitrogen" and "nitrogen gas is known to destroy ozone". If the most common gas in our atmosphere destroys ozone then why does it exist at all? Nitrogen (not as a gas) is important in the depletion process but not as the article implies...
Before anyone claims that humans are no longer the cause for the ozone hole, please realize the depletion was caused because of CFCs. Ozone is depleted as a result of many things, CFC is one of the key components and is a non-natural factor. The increased UV and polar vortices that were a result of the solar activity along with a colder winter increased the depletion, but, it would never have happened at above natural levels without CFCs.
Please read: A simple explanation that I posted a while back and a more complete explanation on how the ozone hole is formed.
These chemical processes are extremely well known: We know that CFCs are the cause, we know that there are a lot of them near the ozone layer, we know they are man made. Therefore, we know we are the cause. All that these researchers found out is that these conditions will speed up the process, not that they are the cause of the process.
It is unfortunate that even with the CFC ban it will take 100-200 years for the ozone hole to repair itself to pre-industrial era levels...
Patrik
This is because of climate conditions that happen only in the poles: a) vortices that concentrate ozone and CFCs and prevent difusion of the damaged area with the rest of the ozone layer and b) extra cold temperatures that freeze nitrogen from the atmosphere thus allowing the CFCs to interact (nitrogen is a slows the process). These are both more prevalent in the southern pole rather than the northern pole. If we had a major hole over the northern pole there would be a lot more damage since the higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere are much more populated than the higher latitudes of the south.
Patrik
I don't know who they talked to at Virginia Tech, but we have wireless, the school provides web pages, we do get student discounted computers, some courses do have streamable audio/video, honestly can't remember if we get network access in the dorm lounges but I know there are ports there so I'd think yes, they do provide multimedia equipment, we do have classes in emerging technologies, and WUVT (the local campus radio station) does in fact stream on the net http://www.wuvt.vt.edu/. So we definitely deserve to be a little better off than they claim.
Patrik
I remember cleaning a trojan/virus/backdoor off a friend's computer a few years ago that allowed this among other things. It's not like this is new, maybe because this is all it does (dunno if that's all it does) it get's on the front of /. I love slashdot but this is not frontpage newsworthy especially in the wording that was used.
Patrik
As far as I can tell people will always be file sharing, so why don't we come up with a responsible network that gives some incentive to the sharers to be responsible. Why is P2P so good? Simply put, high availability. Beyond that low cost to the owners of the material since they don't have to own a lot of servers and whatnot. So we need a network that can track sharers trades and charge them a nominal fee (read much less than current costs). I haven't seen much in the way of this but I did google across a relatively young and in the works network called bitmunk. It's still in beta and whatnot, but they seem pretty serious about all this, I even talked to to a programmer there and bothered him for some technical questions and he seemed pretty receptive to my comments.
They seem to have the right idea, no DRM but they do have watermarks so they can track you down and cancel your account if you start sharing elsewhere. Maybe this doesnt' solve sharing among friends but, that's probably not a solvable problem, iTunes doesn't even solve this.
Of course all this means we have to return the copyrights to the artists or someone more responsible to the RIAA.
My 2 cents: check out the network give them ideas, they seem pretty bright and eager to please.
Patrik
I didn't even realize there was a Myranet, I just misspelled Myrinet. It sounds like you have more first hand experience than I do but according to the numbers Mellanox claims (4.5us) and the numbers that Myrinet claims (6.3 s), Infiniband, at least on paper looks less latent.
http://lqcd.fnal.gov/ib/ (half way down the page)
Patrik
~3.5 times speedup for ~2.3 times the processors, it's not all in the # of processors. Tell you what, if someone builds a 36TFlop machine with the interconnects that VT uses drop me an email, I'll buy you a pizza. Infiniband is great stuff but it's a somewhat more generalized networking technology, unless you do something crazy with the network topology you're going to hit bandwidth limitations, we're talking about math problems that easily require terrabytes of message passing.
Patrik
1) The VT cluster will probably never beat the EarthSim. Why? Because the interconnects (fancy network connections) are so specialized on EarthSim that it will tromp any off the shelf system. Furthermore everything about the EarthSim computers are built to be clustered as they are. VT uses infiniband which is faster and lower latency than Myranet or the other common cluster interconnects, which is part of the reason why it kicks so much butt, but the systems are still pretty much off the shelf and will never be able to beat EarthSim. Of course VT does for millions upon millions less and much more cost effectively, so even if it's not #1, in many ways it is the best.
2) Google's cluster is (probably) a much more distributed system, it would probably take a severe beating in trying to do the LinPack benchmarks that they use to rank the top500. The algorithm requires a lot of data passing, it probably doesn't excel at low latency or even high bandwidth (>16Gb/s) data passing. That's just an educated guess though, AFAIK that information is pretty well secreted. In raw processing power under one roof Google probably has it made, but since most problems (not all, read: *@home) in science and math require lots of data passing between nodes Google will probably get trounced in the top500.
Patrik
I had similar problems with a Rev. A TiBook and so I sent an email to my Uni's local apple rep and he hooked me up with someone in the quality assurance dept, they got me a replacement AluBook (much nicer). Despite having so many problems, AppleCare was, in general, very fast, polite, and helpful.
Patrik
Yeah maybe you go to that Other School (UVA for people not in the know). But at VT, where I am an upperclassman, I have not once turned in any CS assignment that has not been done in gcc or Linux.
;).
There is a decent sized group windows fanboys around but they're here just for cannon fodder
Patrik
It should read. What I said made no sense grammatically and made even less sense technically. Thank you for taking my mistake so literal. It should read: Symmetric ciphers use XORs AND permutation to encrypt and are generally faster. I was actually speaking of DES when I said this I figured RC4 was ver similar and it is in many respects.
I hear that at least the BIOS is RC4 encrypted. This attack would not work on decrypting most modern symmetric ciphers since all encryption/decryption is constant time. Actually symmetric ciphers are much more secure than the Public/Private Key (per keylength 7kbit RSA ~ 256 AES) . In fact with PGP and I would guess SSL is the same they only use the Private Public key encryption to securely agree upon a symmetric key to encrypt the data with. Symmetric keys use XORs are permutations to encrypt and are generally faster.
Patrik
Yup you're right, looked over my notes again and it's 8 byte plaintext (it's only been 6 months :( I think I am getting forgetful in my old age ). Can you find a link to Matsui's paper?
Patrik
I might be wrong but the way I understand it is you can narrow down the keyspace with less blocks then it takes to solve? I admit I haven't read the papers only short bits from a textbook by Trappe & Washington (it tends to focus more on the number theoretical systems). I know airsnort takes a huge ammount information but 64 terrabytes is a bit much.
(by your calculations it should take around 56 Tb, since the plaintext is not 8 bytes but 7 (1 byte of parity bits), though that's just me being picky
Please feel free to drop me a line and let me know the errors of my ways or send me links to these papers since I could only find references to Matsuis's paper
Patrik
I didn't make any reference to the size of the key just at the joke that DES is, just the joke that DES has become. Independent of the size (except for small values), differential analysis should allow you to reach a key faster than trying all of the possibilites. There's plenty of known plaintext if you know the FS being used which makes things that much easier.
Patrik
DES has been replaced by Rijndael (AES)in the govt. Or at least that's what's supposed to happen, DeS is no longer secure enough. I would bet that with the huge ammounts of data stored on a disk differential techniques would make it a snap to get the key. What's worse is an easy to crack crypto system that you believe in is worse than no crypto system at all since you're likely to store data on it that you might not store otherwise.
Patrik
I want a laser cooling system! Who needs these wimpy 273.15K cooling systems I want a nice 0.0001K so I can preserve my food forever.
Patrik
I haven't read the aforementioned article, but I will check it out. My experiences may just say the same thing as they say (or maybe not). So sorry if this is repeated.
WEP is a joke unless you keep rekeying connection, which depending on how many packets you throw across the connection may or may not be realistically possible. (In many cases I'd guess not)
Choosing a secure SSID as someone mention won't get you very far if you're running in infrastructure mode since it broadcasts that. And if someone knows you have an AP then they can scan channel by channel until tcpdump picks something up and then you really don't need an SSID.
IPSec is a widely accessible protocol that gives the ability to encrypt communications and do authentication (in much the same way that ssh does it). IPSec is available on many platforms: Linux, Windows 2k/XP, BSD, (I think Mac OSX does), and most of them support it natively (ie no slow userspace daemons to run).
Using the authentication you can allow only authorized clients to connect, by allowing only IPSec packets through your router and then let IPSec do the rest. IPSec also does rekeying for the encryption so it's much safer than WEP.
Patrik
Okay listen up if you don't know enough about Unix to know that a lot of Unices use DES ecnryption to do passwords(which allows for only 8 chars), then you shouldn't be fucking with CLI, or at least don't expect things from it that aren't stated. Most Unices still use (or provided compatibility for) DES hashes as opposed to MD5. Apple is not that far behind the curve give it up, it's a stupid topic. The people who should know about security will already know all this and the people who dont really don't need to worry this much about security.
The GUI for all of this seems to make it clear tat it's only worrying about the first 8 chars.
Patrik
Congrats you two.
Does this mean you're gonna put out the next episode of Geeks in Space?
In a little bit more seriousness, congrats to you too if she says yes. And on the off chance if she says no then you'll have a quarter-million people willing to buy you a few rounds of your favourite liquor.
For ozone to be destroyed you need:
Although I am sure that other chemicals can break down ozone, CFCS are the most common and best at doing it because they are lighter than air and they normally DO NOT react with anything around us (at or near sea level). These two properties make them fly up high into the ozone layer. The non-reactant portion is what made these chemicals so great and so unthought of as causing problems. To destroy ozone molecules you have to have some very specific conditions:
Okay so now how do you get these conditions, and why is there no northern ozone hole? Well we have uv-light and aplenty so that's not a problem. The first issue is gathering a lot of CFCs (and ozone) into one place, this is taken care of by the Antarctic vortex. The vortex is there during certain months of the year and it builds up a lot CFCs and Ozone into a small space. In the northern polar regions it isn't so prominent because there are landmarks to break up these winds, however there are some weaker ones that are present in the north. Okay, we got ozone and CFC and light, now we need to get rid of the nitrogen. This is handled by formation of nitrogen clouds, which are clouds that are really cold and really high up that contain droplets of condensed nitrogen, and now the nitrogen is gone in the atmosphere and CFC havoc may occur. This doesn't happen in the north because the north pole is much warmer (or at least enough to prevent this). Now the scary thing is if we get a cold winter in the north then a big hole can form in the north, and if you look at a globe there are millions upons millions more people in the upper northen latitudes than there are in the southernmost latitudes. And if you use the following statistic, -1% ozone layer = +2% UV-light on the surface of the Earth = +4% skin cancer, which is sorta bad when applied to cities like London and Quebec and what not (yes these ozone holes can affect huge areas).
Now before someone tries to beat me down for using pseudo science, my mother is on the DIAL team which is a NASA group that measures the ozone hole using a LIDAR(Laser detection) system. These were the people who went to confirm the ozone hole when NASA originally thought the TOMS satellite was malfunctioning because it had almost no readings in the south pole for ozone. I may have bungled some of the facts so if I did please correct me. I think most of these chemical processes have been tested in a lab so they are empirical evidence.
As for the the stabilizing of the ozone I can only make a few conjectures: 1) the most likely IMHO, the temperature in the southern pole haven't been as cold lately, I know I have been going through some wacky yearly climate cahnges here, 2)the Earth is mucuh more resilient than we like to think, or 3) We're missing something that is there and it may not be only the CFCs or it could be a natural cyclical event, but I have trouble believing it is natural with all the scientific evidence I have seen. There are still too many CFCs in the ozone layer for it start repairing, and due to the resilience and the near-non-reactance of CFCs they will be around for another 60-100 years, before the ozone makes a come back and another 100 after that to repair itself.
My grandfather was procurement officer for the Viking I program at Langley, they had a a reuninon party which I attended. Everyone kept remarking about how everyone worked together then and how now it's a giant rat race, everyone competing against each other. It's a good point to observe, the companies are very cutthroat now adays, and don't cooperate as much as they used to. Look at the unit conversion (or lack thereof) that caused the probe to crash. Lack of cooperation. Patrik :) http://pjbutler.dhs.org/me
-------------
Just your ordinary BOFH
This is the coolest thing in HS. IF you're not in HS become a mentor and you can still build.
If anyone else from the games sees this good luck, and come by Team 122's pit and ask for Patrik. Maybe we can start a /. Team next year. . .
:) http://pjbutler.dhs.org/me
Patrik, Team 122
-------------
Just your ordinary BOFH