Ah, that one would make sense to me. I still think the stupidest part would be having *any* anonymous server with direct access to the internet. I'd assume that - in order to know the hosts IP - it actually had a public IP address.
Firewall, then server. Server gets a NAT'ed address, and only implicitly allowed connections make it through the firewall/NAT. It should never even know what the public IP is.
A lot of ISP's ban home servers if - par example - you're divvying out content to the internet (though often not unless you're caught, those port 25 and/or 80 blocks are also common).
However, a lot of "home servers" these days are just media boxen used to personal consumption. The cloud-enabled ones usually have some service for allowing remote-access as well. Geeks may have a file/media server along with maybe a game host of some type, which doesn't necessarily break the TOS for the ISP.
I would be very surprised if the BBC themselves (well, their IT dept) didn't use VPN's. Almost any mid-large sized business will be using them in some fashion, and even many small businesses do these days.
A friend of mine has a game where he responds to the "free vacation" guys with just "yes" for every question. He then posts the results to his FB along with how long he managed to bait the faux-telemarketer, and what their last words were (usually profanity).
It's not about a server misconfiguration. TOR connections are tunnels. You don't have to configure your webserver etc for TOR, your machine just has to behind a firewall etc that doesn't allow the traffic out (or really, a router that just doesn't NAT it in). The only way to access the webserver would be through the tunnel, so no TOR=no access.
I find it a bit hard to believe that a guy who is able to get one of the largest black-market enterprises running on a server/farm connected to an anonymous/decentralized network isn't smart enough to *not* give it a public IP and/or put the equivalent to a home internet router in front of it.
This might be part of it. My favourite part is how airlines (or just companies, really) that are doing poorly hire even more expensive CEO's with the expectation that they'll have some magic fix to things, but instead they drive the company into the ground and collect their big payout and golden parachute.
the 5' 3" housewife ahead of me deserves to lounge in comfort
I doubt it's "lounging in comfort", but yeah actually she does deserve as much conform as is available in her seat. The problem is that the airlines have designed crappy seats wherein her comfort detracts from yours. Don't blame the passenger in front, blame the shitty airline seating and your cheap company which only provides cheap fares but (apparently) requires lots of travel.
Well, there's "paying for better" and "paying for less terrible." In many cases, a company will actually make a situation worse and then charge a premium for what used to be normal. That's evil.
For airline level of evil, I'd almost expect it to come as "well, you didn't pay $15 for the seats-without-embedded-tacks option, did you? It's not our fault you're cheap!"
Leg length. My father and I are the same height, but when I driven his car on occasion I feel like the pedals are a mile away. I've got more upper-body length and he's more lower-body.
You can have two people that are 6' tall. The one with the long legs is going to suffer more on a plane where the passenger in front reclines backwards
It's NOT acceptable. Most of what trolls do isn't. It's terrible crap designed to garner as much attention as possible. Nobody likes trolls. The problem is that now they're equivilating intelligent opposition to the trolls.
Let's say there's a legitimate (political or otherwise) debate going on. During the debate, some troll heckler - who has no interest or stake in the debate - comes in and starts raising bothering debater B. Maybe this is just some random drunk/druggie who wandered in from the street. He threatens to kill debator B. Then, debater B uses this to accuse his/her opponents of all being offensive trolls. He/she says "see, it's proof that my opponents are all hateful and evil." But it's not, it's proof that one person is, possibly even a person unrelated to the debate at hand.
Is the activity of that person unacceptable: YES! Is it related to the debate at hand: Possibly, but even if it is it does not represent all those involved in the debate.
Not really that trivial, depending on the signal. You need a shielded bunker or something of the sort. Good enough for small arms, but not as easy for large or heavy equipment. And then you can't easily move it out of the bunker and be migratory.
Alternately, you can jam the signal. The problem with that: when somebody jams - say - a military aircraft signal, then the jammer becomes very apparent and is essentially a big target in itself.
Most likely, though, they'd just do what they already do. Hide among civilians or put the target under an orphanage etc. These aren't exactly nice guys we're talking about.
Then again, how would you even know which equipment was owned by allies or enemies?
How about an "enable switch" instead. A removable part that is easy enough to install or remove, but without it the device does not function.
The problem is that said part would need to be hard enough to acquire or reproduce in the wild, be rugged enough to withstand normal use, and be difficult to reproduce.
Perhaps rather than a disabling/enabling part, just something that allows the equipment to be rendered inoperable easily (e.g. blow the control board or melt the trigger mechanism).
I've met people who were brilliant sysadmins or developers but who never went to college/uni, let's call them the enthusiasts. In fact, I'd say many of the best free-thinking problem-solvers (those that could deal with an "unexpected" issue and sort it out quick) were not college-educated.
However, there is one thing the "educated" people brought - other than an expensive piece of paper - was structure in dealing with long-term support, mainly documentation. The college people tended to indent nicely, comment code, and use variable names more descriptive than $x1, $x2, etc. They tended to leave a paper trail that was easier for successors or co-workers to follow.
When sh*t hit the fan, the college guys sometimes fell into a "OMG it's not in the book/docs, what to do!?" whereas the "enthusiasts" were quick to come up with useful but sometimes unortherdox methods for diagnosing and fixing issues.
I'm more of a middle-grounder myself. I spend years dealing with crazy computer issues before Uni, but still managed to scrape up the cash to attend. Having industry experience was also helpful in finding a decent gig post-Uni (for that matter, I *highly* recommend a course that has co-op - work-terms, generally paid - if available). If you *like* code, there's no reason you can't go to Uni and/or do some side projects of your own for fun and learning. Again, in my personal experience, Uni provided me with the *structure* that helps maintain the systems I run, but experience and an interest in the industry provided me with the ability to deal with quirks and unusual situations. Engaging in activity that show you have good group-work/communication skills is also *very* helpful.
For those hiring, a team with some educated coders/admins and an enthusiast be *very* effective. The problem is generally in finding people who work well together, as both types tend to come with their own variety of ego. It's sometimes hard to get the enthusiasts to commit to building good documentation or working on longer projects (they work well on-the-spot but can be more easily distracted/bored), and you get a lot of upmanship (upwomanship?) in either direction.
The local Home Depot also ties CC #'s to your email, allowing you to receive copies of your receipts in email. This is very useful if you need to keep receipts for tax purposes. However, if they're tying this to the plain-text CC info, not good at all (I had assumed some modicum of intelligence and that the emails were tied to name+hash).
Well, having proofed various essays by Russian speakers, the grammar errors seem to be similar (mind you, other languages may also have errors of the same nature).
* about a 1000 Russian soldiers * war of 08.08.08 in Abhasia and Georgia shown * in not at all stupid * 100,000 troops, full backing of the Russian tanks
Slashdot Mirror
Oh how I miss those.
Ah, that one would make sense to me.
I still think the stupidest part would be having *any* anonymous server with direct access to the internet. I'd assume that - in order to know the hosts IP - it actually had a public IP address.
Firewall, then server. Server gets a NAT'ed address, and only implicitly allowed connections make it through the firewall/NAT. It should never even know what the public IP is.
A lot of ISP's ban home servers if - par example - you're divvying out content to the internet (though often not unless you're caught, those port 25 and/or 80 blocks are also common).
However, a lot of "home servers" these days are just media boxen used to personal consumption. The cloud-enabled ones usually have some service for allowing remote-access as well. Geeks may have a file/media server along with maybe a game host of some type, which doesn't necessarily break the TOS for the ISP.
I would be very surprised if the BBC themselves (well, their IT dept) didn't use VPN's. Almost any mid-large sized business will be using them in some fashion, and even many small businesses do these days.
A friend of mine has a game where he responds to the "free vacation" guys with just "yes" for every question. He then posts the results to his FB along with how long he managed to bait the faux-telemarketer, and what their last words were (usually profanity).
Quite entertaining
It's not about a server misconfiguration.
TOR connections are tunnels. You don't have to configure your webserver etc for TOR, your machine just has to behind a firewall etc that doesn't allow the traffic out (or really, a router that just doesn't NAT it in). The only way to access the webserver would be through the tunnel, so no TOR=no access.
I find it a bit hard to believe that a guy who is able to get one of the largest black-market enterprises running on a server/farm connected to an anonymous/decentralized network isn't smart enough to *not* give it a public IP and/or put the equivalent to a home internet router in front of it.
This might be part of it. My favourite part is how airlines (or just companies, really) that are doing poorly hire even more expensive CEO's with the expectation that they'll have some magic fix to things, but instead they drive the company into the ground and collect their big payout and golden parachute.
the 5' 3" housewife ahead of me deserves to lounge in comfort
I doubt it's "lounging in comfort", but yeah actually she does deserve as much conform as is available in her seat. The problem is that the airlines have designed crappy seats wherein her comfort detracts from yours. Don't blame the passenger in front, blame the shitty airline seating and your cheap company which only provides cheap fares but (apparently) requires lots of travel.
Well, there's "paying for better" and "paying for less terrible."
In many cases, a company will actually make a situation worse and then charge a premium for what used to be normal. That's evil.
For airline level of evil, I'd almost expect it to come as "well, you didn't pay $15 for the seats-without-embedded-tacks option, did you? It's not our fault you're cheap!"
Leg length. My father and I are the same height, but when I driven his car on occasion I feel like the pedals are a mile away. I've got more upper-body length and he's more lower-body.
You can have two people that are 6' tall. The one with the long legs is going to suffer more on a plane where the passenger in front reclines backwards
Better schools give you more educated peer groups. That doesn't always equate to smarter, but it still has advantages.
UGH, htmlization ate my greater and less than signs!
I've always wished that you could do the following
if ( a == b == c)
or even
if ( a c )
etc
But most languages you need
if ( a == b && b == c)
or
if ( a b && b c )
So you think one woman might be bad...
But it's fine when we're talking about men/male-gamers, right?
When a woman points out that they are misogynistic
When has this happens, and moreover, what were the proposed changes?
It's NOT acceptable. Most of what trolls do isn't. It's terrible crap designed to garner as much attention as possible. Nobody likes trolls.
The problem is that now they're equivilating intelligent opposition to the trolls.
Let's say there's a legitimate (political or otherwise) debate going on. During the debate, some troll heckler - who has no interest or stake in the debate - comes in and starts raising bothering debater B. Maybe this is just some random drunk/druggie who wandered in from the street. He threatens to kill debator B. Then, debater B uses this to accuse his/her opponents of all being offensive trolls. He/she says "see, it's proof that my opponents are all hateful and evil." But it's not, it's proof that one person is, possibly even a person unrelated to the debate at hand.
Is the activity of that person unacceptable: YES!
Is it related to the debate at hand: Possibly, but even if it is it does not represent all those involved in the debate.
Not really that trivial, depending on the signal.
You need a shielded bunker or something of the sort. Good enough for small arms, but not as easy for large or heavy equipment. And then you can't easily move it out of the bunker and be migratory.
Alternately, you can jam the signal. The problem with that: when somebody jams - say - a military aircraft signal, then the jammer becomes very apparent and is essentially a big target in itself.
Most likely, though, they'd just do what they already do. Hide among civilians or put the target under an orphanage etc. These aren't exactly nice guys we're talking about.
Then again, how would you even know which equipment was owned by allies or enemies?
How about an "enable switch" instead. A removable part that is easy enough to install or remove, but without it the device does not function.
The problem is that said part would need to be hard enough to acquire or reproduce in the wild, be rugged enough to withstand normal use, and be difficult to reproduce.
Perhaps rather than a disabling/enabling part, just something that allows the equipment to be rendered inoperable easily (e.g. blow the control board or melt the trigger mechanism).
I've met people who were brilliant sysadmins or developers but who never went to college/uni, let's call them the enthusiasts. In fact, I'd say many of the best free-thinking problem-solvers (those that could deal with an "unexpected" issue and sort it out quick) were not college-educated.
However, there is one thing the "educated" people brought - other than an expensive piece of paper - was structure in dealing with long-term support, mainly documentation. The college people tended to indent nicely, comment code, and use variable names more descriptive than $x1, $x2, etc. They tended to leave a paper trail that was easier for successors or co-workers to follow.
When sh*t hit the fan, the college guys sometimes fell into a "OMG it's not in the book/docs, what to do!?" whereas the "enthusiasts" were quick to come up with useful but sometimes unortherdox methods for diagnosing and fixing issues.
I'm more of a middle-grounder myself. I spend years dealing with crazy computer issues before Uni, but still managed to scrape up the cash to attend. Having industry experience was also helpful in finding a decent gig post-Uni (for that matter, I *highly* recommend a course that has co-op - work-terms, generally paid - if available). If you *like* code, there's no reason you can't go to Uni and/or do some side projects of your own for fun and learning. Again, in my personal experience, Uni provided me with the *structure* that helps maintain the systems I run, but experience and an interest in the industry provided me with the ability to deal with quirks and unusual situations. Engaging in activity that show you have good group-work/communication skills is also *very* helpful.
For those hiring, a team with some educated coders/admins and an enthusiast be *very* effective. The problem is generally in finding people who work well together, as both types tend to come with their own variety of ego. It's sometimes hard to get the enthusiasts to commit to building good documentation or working on longer projects (they work well on-the-spot but can be more easily distracted/bored), and you get a lot of upmanship (upwomanship?) in either direction.
The local Home Depot also ties CC #'s to your email, allowing you to receive copies of your receipts in email. This is very useful if you need to keep receipts for tax purposes. However, if they're tying this to the plain-text CC info, not good at all (I had assumed some modicum of intelligence and that the emails were tied to name+hash).
Umm, I know lots of people who are not geeks in any way, don't think themselves above-average that I've been able to tell, and love "Big Bang Theory".
In fact, I'd say that average people enjoy BBT more than the uber-geeks. The uber-geeks think it's poking fun at them and find it insulting.
Where do you get that lamp. I see it everywhere on various TV shows, but I've never seen where to buy one...
: set noautoindent
Well, having proofed various essays by Russian speakers, the grammar errors seem to be similar (mind you, other languages may also have errors of the same nature).
* about a 1000 Russian soldiers
* war of 08.08.08 in Abhasia and Georgia shown
* in not at all stupid
* 100,000 troops, full backing of the Russian tanks
Which is why I've always asserted that (older) geeks make better lovers. 2400 baud modems have taught us to be patient...