Google and others should respond now by putting a warning on their websites if a customer is coming from a BS ip block. Something like:
Attention: You are connected to us using a BellSouth network. BellSouth may be deliberatly causing your connection to us to run slowly, if the connection seems to be slow you should consider moving to a different provider.
If several popular domains do this BS will run away screaming. Heck, Google could even maliciously counter-attack by randomly running a rate control to the BS ip blocks.
The Google toolbar gives me enough advantages that I install it. The option to open searches in a new tab/window is very nice as is one click link to search on the page for search items. In addition spell check can be very handy (if I remember to use it). I don't use the other options very much, but until they start acting more evil I'll keep it around.
Imagine that my brother and I exchange public keys and keep our private keys private. What can the government do to crack our phone call if doing so requires the private keys that we are smart enough not to share?
Anything can be cracked given time and money. The issue comes down to does the government think what you communicated is worth their time and money.
With any sort of telco system there are two distinct areas of security. First is the security of the equipment. If crackers gain access to your equipment (in the case of VoIP your servers) they can cost you a lot of money. The second is security of the conversation, if crackers/government can eavesdrop on your conversations it may cost you in other ways.
The PSTN is somewhat secure in the first area and totally insecure in the second. In my opinion the VoIP world needs to work on the security of equipment first. If we can be as secure from unauthorized access to our equipment and DoS attacks as the PSTN we'll have come a long way. Currently the phone provides no safeguards for privacy other than legislation, therefore it is not unreasonable to leave ourselves open in the same way for the time being.
Even now, if we must have secure conversations we can pass the audio and signalling through a VPN connection. In the end however, there is no absolute security. End users must be made aware that if they communicate information that information can be compromised.
Motorcycles are statistically more dangerous than cars, but this is primarily due to new rider syndrome. A significant number of crashes (I can't remember the percentage) happen with people who have been riding six months or less. Now the crashes themselves are more dangerous because the rider is more exposed than in a car, but after the six month point accidents are rare enough. In fact people who are consistant riders are probably safer than drivers because we are constantly analyzing the traffic around us and are rarely suprised.
I've seen plenty of drivers who obviously didn't know I was on the same road, I have only been suprised by a car a few times. I commute about 35 miles each day in heavy traffic no matter the weather (SF bay area) and I've had two close calls.
I would take issue with your comments on Java (no experience with.Net). It's actually got very decent performance, and if done properly the UI portion which gets changed the most can be built in-system so testing doesn't take as long.
A good multi-tier java web application is very maintainable and with the natural split between data model, view and control the code is easy to understand and to implement. The views (generally JSPs) look almost entirely like the HTML they generate. The control (serlvets) become very straight forward linear "programettes". And the data model (beans) can be very elaborate yet simple to use.
Combine a java backend with good standards based CSS and possibly javascript frontend and you have one awesome web application that is still quite easy to maintain. Do it the wrong way and you get a mess much like most PHP/Perl/... web apps.
Javascript has plenty of uses, but relying only on client-side code to validate data is a recipe for disaster.
Yes and no. If that is your only method for validating data, yes it is a recipe for disaster. However it can be very handy to validate data before a form is posted to make it easier to alert the user. Of course the server side componants should also validate what they receive as you state. A good three tier design needs to check validity on all three tiers.
I use a lot of javascript to make the UI cleaner (usually simple scripts), to make small changes to objects without having to reload a large page, and to validate form data before it is submitted. Since this is a company internal site I have the advantage of a limited number of browsers, nearly 50/50 between IE and Mozilla. Under these circumstances I can make use of javascript to a much greater extent than if I were creating a public face.
1. Cost: I already have DSL, so that doesn't factor into cost, aside from the DSL Vonage is cheaper than the equivalent service from my local Telco. My local telco removes features and adds charges, Vonage adds features and lowers prices.
2. Flexibility: I can spend an extended time with family and take my home phone with me.
3. Second Line: While I have dropped most services off the copper line, I can still use it for the DTivo and fax without interrupting voice capability.
It is on Google, but hard to find. Search for MOG, PJ and JW, then look at the Google cache (text only). It is a despicable article, IMHO PJ has a solid basis for a number of legal responses.
If I were P.J., I'd be filing charges on O'Gara right now. Her actions are likely sufficient to fall under 18 USC 875(c), the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996. She traveled across state lines in an effort to violate the privacy of an individual who has quite reasonable fear for her safety. O'Gara may also be liable under New York's anti-stalking laws as well.
At the very least, I'd be filing for a restraining order by now.
From what I saw on Groklaw, PJ is actually considering filing charges: Without commenting on the latest O'Gara article's contents, because I am considering legal action and can't comment directly at this time,... (PJ, Intimidation - May 9, 2005).
Furthermore, Sys-Con was exceptionally negligent in ever allowing that sort of thing to be published. Not only is it a gross and blatant violation of journalistic ethics, but it's quite possibly opened them up to a devastating legal action.
Yes it is, but it's my understanding that MOG was not only the journalist but also the editor. This made it nearly identical to a personal blog, rather than real reporting. In other words, it was all her, and Sys-Con apparently didn't have review powers until the load of cr*p was already published. This means though that if Sys-Con is still keeping her on as editor in other publications they are playing with fire.
Don't know what the noise is about. At least with Vonage (who is generally the target of the mis-informed ire) when you sign up you are explicitly told that you cannot use it for 911 service until you activate that service. When activating the service you have to specify the address to be used. This address can be changed as needed. You are also told that you will not necessarily be connected to the standard 911 service. The information is very clearly spelled out, go to vonage.com and check it out yourself.
I have used 911 service on Vonage, because I took the second step of enabling the service and entering my address it worked fine. Mind you in the middle of an emergency those five minutes of response time still seem like forever.
Uh, right. I made the mistake of putting an unsecured machine on a modem once, it was cracked in minutes. Fortuneatly since it was a fresh install, I just wiped the HD and re-installed, then secured it before connecting again.
I had something like that for a while, every so often a script would analyze my logs and if I had a lot of attempts from a given IP I would block the IP. If I even more attempts from a subnet I'd block the subnet, and so on.
I've found though that the RBLs seem to do very well for the massive spam houses and I don't need to do much else on my end.
Do you have some evidence of Vonage's 911 relay working only during office hours?
Well I have to opposite evidence. I used my Vonage phone to call 911 very early one morning. 911 apparently did not have my address (even though I thought I had registered it), but it was answered promptly and we had the ambulance there in minutes.
Apparently in California the Vonage 911 calls are routed through the CHP just as with cell phones.
My understanding was that it's not the content, but the URL. A 302 is a temporary redirect, so when A redirects to B, Google keeps the B URL and remembers that it's just the same as the A URL. Then when Googlebot visits B, it realizes it already has the page indexed....it's the temporary redirect.
I think the Googlebot should refuse to follow 302's across domains.
No, the way it works is with the 302, but only for the googlebot.
Googlebot goes to scammer's site
Googlebot is given a 302 (redirect) to the victim's site
Googlebot indexes the victim's site as belonging to the original URL
Googlebot goes to the victim's site
Googlebot realizes this URL is already indexed and "belongs" (according to the Google code) to the scammer.
The victim's site get's lower rankings as the page is not even indexed, the scammer's site gets a higher ranking.
For this to work the scammer has to give the 302 only to the googlebot, all other browsers need to get the content of the scammer's page. If you google for "cheapest car insurance" (IIRC) you can find an example of this. Change your User Agent accordingly and click on the top Google link, you'll end up at another site. Change back to Mozilla and you'll get the scammer's site.
I think writing slows them down enough on a particular subject
Yeah, tell that to my EE advisor/prof who could fill up two black boards in just minutes. He went along with chalk in one hand and eraser in the other so he could continue writing as he erased.
In general though I agree with you. Keep computers out of the theoretical classes, engage the students and those who want to will learn.
Shortly after my Calculas and Difficult Equations classes the courses were changed to use computers in the solving of problems. The students did much better in solving math problems, well the computers did any way. However when it came time to apply those lessons in EE classes and labs many students could not make the link between punching in the math problem on the keyboard and analyzing a circuit. I suspect the MEs had similar problems. As a result I am opposed to that sort of use of computers in the classroom.
The Solar Tubes have a lighting kit. The mix isn't automatic, you have to flip a switch on the wall, but they work nicely. I have one in a windowless laundry room. Most of the day we can get by without turning on the light.
Old news. I saw Popular Science/Mechanics articles on this in the late 80's. It was going to be the next big thing. That and the light pipes were going to change the way we lit buildings. It's nothing new.
Slashdot Mirror
Well at 2 pots/day I guess I'm 1/16 as likely to develop liver disease.
Google and others should respond now by putting a warning on their websites if a customer is coming from a BS ip block. Something like:
Attention: You are connected to us using a BellSouth network. BellSouth may be deliberatly causing your connection to us to run slowly, if the connection seems to be slow you should consider moving to a different provider.
If several popular domains do this BS will run away screaming. Heck, Google could even maliciously counter-attack by randomly running a rate control to the BS ip blocks.
The Google toolbar gives me enough advantages that I install it. The option to open searches in a new tab/window is very nice as is one click link to search on the page for search items. In addition spell check can be very handy (if I remember to use it). I don't use the other options very much, but until they start acting more evil I'll keep it around.
Imagine that my brother and I exchange public keys and keep our private keys private. What can the government do to crack our phone call if doing so requires the private keys that we are smart enough not to share?
Anything can be cracked given time and money. The issue comes down to does the government think what you communicated is worth their time and money.
With any sort of telco system there are two distinct areas of security. First is the security of the equipment. If crackers gain access to your equipment (in the case of VoIP your servers) they can cost you a lot of money. The second is security of the conversation, if crackers/government can eavesdrop on your conversations it may cost you in other ways.
The PSTN is somewhat secure in the first area and totally insecure in the second. In my opinion the VoIP world needs to work on the security of equipment first. If we can be as secure from unauthorized access to our equipment and DoS attacks as the PSTN we'll have come a long way. Currently the phone provides no safeguards for privacy other than legislation, therefore it is not unreasonable to leave ourselves open in the same way for the time being.
Even now, if we must have secure conversations we can pass the audio and signalling through a VPN connection. In the end however, there is no absolute security. End users must be made aware that if they communicate information that information can be compromised.
Motorcycles are statistically more dangerous than cars, but this is primarily due to new rider syndrome. A significant number of crashes (I can't remember the percentage) happen with people who have been riding six months or less. Now the crashes themselves are more dangerous because the rider is more exposed than in a car, but after the six month point accidents are rare enough. In fact people who are consistant riders are probably safer than drivers because we are constantly analyzing the traffic around us and are rarely suprised.
I've seen plenty of drivers who obviously didn't know I was on the same road, I have only been suprised by a car a few times. I commute about 35 miles each day in heavy traffic no matter the weather (SF bay area) and I've had two close calls.
I would take issue with your comments on Java (no experience with .Net). It's actually got very decent performance, and if done properly the UI portion which gets changed the most can be built in-system so testing doesn't take as long.
A good multi-tier java web application is very maintainable and with the natural split between data model, view and control the code is easy to understand and to implement. The views (generally JSPs) look almost entirely like the HTML they generate. The control (serlvets) become very straight forward linear "programettes". And the data model (beans) can be very elaborate yet simple to use.
Combine a java backend with good standards based CSS and possibly javascript frontend and you have one awesome web application that is still quite easy to maintain. Do it the wrong way and you get a mess much like most PHP/Perl/... web apps.
Yep, I've used it for quite a while. The fun part was limiting a text box to numeric entry only.
Javascript has plenty of uses, but relying only on client-side code to validate data is a recipe for disaster.
Yes and no. If that is your only method for validating data, yes it is a recipe for disaster. However it can be very handy to validate data before a form is posted to make it easier to alert the user. Of course the server side componants should also validate what they receive as you state. A good three tier design needs to check validity on all three tiers.
I use a lot of javascript to make the UI cleaner (usually simple scripts), to make small changes to objects without having to reload a large page, and to validate form data before it is submitted. Since this is a company internal site I have the advantage of a limited number of browsers, nearly 50/50 between IE and Mozilla. Under these circumstances I can make use of javascript to a much greater extent than if I were creating a public face.
Various reasons.
1. Cost: I already have DSL, so that doesn't factor into cost, aside from the DSL Vonage is cheaper than the equivalent service from my local Telco. My local telco removes features and adds charges, Vonage adds features and lowers prices.
2. Flexibility: I can spend an extended time with family and take my home phone with me.
3. Second Line: While I have dropped most services off the copper line, I can still use it for the DTivo and fax without interrupting voice capability.
It is on Google, but hard to find. Search for MOG, PJ and JW, then look at the Google cache (text only). It is a despicable article, IMHO PJ has a solid basis for a number of legal responses.
If I were P.J., I'd be filing charges on O'Gara right now. Her actions are likely sufficient to fall under 18 USC 875(c), the Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996. She traveled across state lines in an effort to violate the privacy of an individual who has quite reasonable fear for her safety. O'Gara may also be liable under New York's anti-stalking laws as well.
At the very least, I'd be filing for a restraining order by now.
From what I saw on Groklaw, PJ is actually considering filing charges: Without commenting on the latest O'Gara article's contents, because I am considering legal action and can't comment directly at this time,... (PJ, Intimidation - May 9, 2005).
Furthermore, Sys-Con was exceptionally negligent in ever allowing that sort of thing to be published. Not only is it a gross and blatant violation of journalistic ethics, but it's quite possibly opened them up to a devastating legal action.
Yes it is, but it's my understanding that MOG was not only the journalist but also the editor. This made it nearly identical to a personal blog, rather than real reporting. In other words, it was all her, and Sys-Con apparently didn't have review powers until the load of cr*p was already published. This means though that if Sys-Con is still keeping her on as editor in other publications they are playing with fire.
Don't know what the noise is about. At least with Vonage (who is generally the target of the mis-informed ire) when you sign up you are explicitly told that you cannot use it for 911 service until you activate that service. When activating the service you have to specify the address to be used. This address can be changed as needed. You are also told that you will not necessarily be connected to the standard 911 service. The information is very clearly spelled out, go to vonage.com and check it out yourself.
I have used 911 service on Vonage, because I took the second step of enabling the service and entering my address it worked fine. Mind you in the middle of an emergency those five minutes of response time still seem like forever.
Uh, right. I made the mistake of putting an unsecured machine on a modem once, it was cracked in minutes. Fortuneatly since it was a fresh install, I just wiped the HD and re-installed, then secured it before connecting again.
I had something like that for a while, every so often a script would analyze my logs and if I had a lot of attempts from a given IP I would block the IP. If I even more attempts from a subnet I'd block the subnet, and so on.
I've found though that the RBLs seem to do very well for the massive spam houses and I don't need to do much else on my end.
The issue is not the routing, but that only you know where the phone actually is. The default is to route it like non-GPS cell phones.
Not at all. As soon as you get Vonage, configure the 911 service. Then all you do is dial 911, after that all you do is talk to the service.
Your post was not insightful in the least.
Do you have some evidence of Vonage's 911 relay working only during office hours?
Well I have to opposite evidence. I used my Vonage phone to call 911 very early one morning. 911 apparently did not have my address (even though I thought I had registered it), but it was answered promptly and we had the ambulance there in minutes.
Apparently in California the Vonage 911 calls are routed through the CHP just as with cell phones.
My understanding was that it's not the content, but the URL. A 302 is a temporary redirect, so when A redirects to B, Google keeps the B URL and remembers that it's just the same as the A URL. Then when Googlebot visits B, it realizes it already has the page indexed....it's the temporary redirect.
I think the Googlebot should refuse to follow 302's across domains.
No, the way it works is with the 302, but only for the googlebot.
For this to work the scammer has to give the 302 only to the googlebot, all other browsers need to get the content of the scammer's page. If you google for "cheapest car insurance" (IIRC) you can find an example of this. Change your User Agent accordingly and click on the top Google link, you'll end up at another site. Change back to Mozilla and you'll get the scammer's site.
Aptitude.....
I think writing slows them down enough on a particular subject
Yeah, tell that to my EE advisor/prof who could fill up two black boards in just minutes. He went along with chalk in one hand and eraser in the other so he could continue writing as he erased.
In general though I agree with you. Keep computers out of the theoretical classes, engage the students and those who want to will learn.
Shortly after my Calculas and Difficult Equations classes the courses were changed to use computers in the solving of problems. The students did much better in solving math problems, well the computers did any way. However when it came time to apply those lessons in EE classes and labs many students could not make the link between punching in the math problem on the keyboard and analyzing a circuit. I suspect the MEs had similar problems. As a result I am opposed to that sort of use of computers in the classroom.
Can't forget HSC
The Solar Tubes have a lighting kit. The mix isn't automatic, you have to flip a switch on the wall, but they work nicely. I have one in a windowless laundry room. Most of the day we can get by without turning on the light.
Old news. I saw Popular Science/Mechanics articles on this in the late 80's. It was going to be the next big thing. That and the light pipes were going to change the way we lit buildings. It's nothing new.