Next, I'd be pissed at the guy who left the note. How dare he enter my home and invade my privacy!?! But, at the same time, I'd thank Ghod that it was some (semi-) honest citizen, rather than a crook. Else I would have come home to a missing tv, stereo, etc. The invasion of privacy is the price I paid. What I received for that price is knowledge that helped me secure my home against the REAL bad guys.
I think you are missing something here: the guy who broke into your house is a CROOK and is a REAL bad guy. Is he as bad as the guy who breaks in and steals your stuff? No. Is he as bad as the guy who breaks in and rapes your wife or girlfriend? No. But he IS a guy that broke into your house, and his motivation for doing so does not automatically absolve him of this crime. He IS a criminal, because he DID commit a crime (the crime of breaking and entering).
I also fail to see how this is a (semi-) honest person. He broke into another person's home. If he was (semi-) honest, he could have left a note outside the house saying "FYI, the lock you have on your door is very easy to break and you should replace it. Here is a list of good locks." without ever having to step inside.
I would argue that this person has no "good intentions", but rather he finds amusement in breaking in to other people's homes and derives some sort of self-satisfaction from his cleverness. The altruistic "advisory" to the homeowner is just some shallow moral justification for his actions, and is in reality just one more device to provide him satisfaction from the shock and horror of the homeowner. There are a lot of ways that he could improve homeowners' security, WITHOUT resorting to house-breaking. They just aren't as amusing, and what this guy is really after is his own personal amusement.
I'm willing to pay that price. I guess you'd rather 'feel' secure than 'be' secure.
No, I'd rather 'be' secure, and security means stopping all intruders - benevolent or otherwise. However, I don't ask for "benevolent volunteers" to test my security for me. I'll test it myself thanks. And if my security measures are lacking, I'll pay THAT price for my negligence and deal with it accordingly. You see, at my house I shoot intruders - all intruders. If I find you in my home, the excuse "I was testing your security" will not prevent you from being unloaded upon.
If these curious, benevolent house-breakers want to test people's security for them, they should accept the fact that not everyone will appreciate their efforts. Most will call the cops (as NYT did to Mr. Lamo), and some (like myself) will aggress the intruder directly. It will be the rare few (like yourself) who will thank them for their efforts. That is just reality, and anything else is idealistic fantasy (of course, that's where most of these guys operate anyway).
We HAVE to help this guy out. Jail is not right -- what he did was mere curiosity mixed with the desire to HELP these companies fix their network.
He did nothing of REAL financial damage. Please help him today (imagine if you were in HIS shoes!).
Thank you for reading this, friends. We, as a large tech community, have to get behind this guy and show others that mere EXPLORING is not to be looked down upon. What if we didn't explore Mars/Moon?
Pardon my frankness, but you are full of shit. If you came home and found this asshole sitting in your livingroom watching pay-per-view TV after having gone through all of your cabinets and drawers, would you say:
"Oh, no problem. What you did wasn't wrong. You were just being *curious* about what was in my house. You were just *exploring* when you went through my desk drawers and read all of my personal documents. You were just trying to *help* me by pointing out security vulnerabilities in my patio door and alarm system. Thanks so much!"
NO! You wouldn't. You'd call the cops after chasing the guy out of your house.
This isn't about exporing Mars. This is breaking and entering, pure and simple. It's time that people like this stop thinking the whole goddam world is here just to satisfy their personal "curiosity". To be perfectly blunt, you can take your Adrian Lamo Defense Fund and cram it up your ass. I want to see this guy do the maximum stretch as a lesson to other "curious" fellows.
"You'd better pick number 47 in tonight's PowerBall, or don't bother coming into work tomorrow."
Well, I can tell you that if I hit the PowerBall, I sure as shit wouldn't bother coming into work tomorrow anyway. But that's another issue entirely...
I know what you are saying about vote buying and strong-arming, but you can't just say "fuck it, let's just hope for the best" because there are going to be a few rare cases of corruption and extortion. There are no bullet-proof solutions.
Right now we have a system where a voter casts a ballot and has no confirmation that his vote was cast correctly and no way to prove he voted the way he did. I think that's something that needs to be fixed.
In order for a proper recount to be done, everyone who voted would have to bring their receipt. Having even 90% of the voters return their receipts would accomplish nothing if the vote was close. Most likely the original count would only be challenged if the vote was very close.
I also said that you could print a second receipt that goes into a big bin with all the other votes. The election board could use the paper ballots to doublecheck the voting machines.
The difference between the voting receipt and the ATM receipt is that voting is anonymous. You want there to be a provable link between you and your bank account. The same is not true for your vote.
But it's possible for the vote to be both anonymous and traceable by assigning a crypto hash to the vote when the vote is cast. The hash is logged with the vote, and printed on the paper receipt. Conceivably, the paper receipt could be verified against the recorded vote with the same hash to make sure that vote had not been altered.
Of course, my point was not that voter receipts should be the only method of verifying an election. Just that receipts give the voter confirmation that their vote has been cast appropriately when the transaction is done. It also gives them something to take home with them to remember the event. People like souveniers (perfect example, I once had a girlfriend that had the ticket stub to every movie, concert, or show she had ever been to stored in a big fishbowl - she was nuts, but cute!).
Why not just have the voting machines print a receipt for the voter after they cast their ballot? For one, it'd be a great souvenier of the election. Secondly, if there was a challenge to the vote, concerned voters could bring their receipt to a recount.
Of course, the machine could also print a receipt for the election board as well and put it in a big bin, so that there's a paper ballot that can be recounted or verified by them if the election comes under question.
Electronic transactions are great, but you should get a paper receipt when it's done. Several times, I've actually had to prove to my bank that I really made a deposit to my account from an ATM because the deposit was lost/misapplied/eaten by ATM gnomes. If I hadn't had the paper receipt, I'd have been SOL.
Qcast for PS2 has been able todo this for years...
Yeah... but not *WELL*. I was an early QCast adopter, and thought it was pretty good. The old 1.x version had some issues (occasional audio sync problems, no ff/rw, etc), but all in all it was decent.
Then BroadQ came out with the 2.x version ala Game Shark Media Player, and things started to go south. First, they lowered the supported video spec from the 1.x standard, thus causing problems with almost all of my 16:9 movies ripped at resolutions larger than 512x384 (constant lock-ups). On top of that, their support has gone to pot (they just ignore email support requests now) and I question whether the company is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. You don't have to look very far for evidence of that. They've been promising for over 8 months to ship out new CD's to registered users to replace the original CD's that have trouble booting. I haven't seen mine yet. Have you?
So maybe if you've got a collection of low-res, low bitrate movies and you are one of the lucky few who own a CD that still boots, QCast is good for you. I wouldn't go recommending it to others, though. Personally, I shitcanned my copy of QCast, sold off my PS2 (because that's all I used it for), and just build myself a video client out of an old laptop to stream movies from my server to the TV. It may not have a pretty little GUI, but at least I can get through a movie without the damned thing locking up.
The National Science Foundation runs a scholarship for service program for IT Security focused students. Basically, you get a scholarship to major in an IT Security discipline, then you owe a certain number of years work to a government agency such as the NSA or the DHS. You can find more info at this site.
Note: this is not an endorsement, I have no direct knowledge of, nor experience with, this government program. It might suck ass. It might be great. I don't know. I'm just suggesting that you look into it.
The way I see it, you should just forget about WEP keys, filtering, tip jars, and all of that crap. You are in the coffee shop business, not the cybercafe business.
Here's what I think you should do:
1) Get the cheapest DSL connection you can find in your area.
2) Buy as few low-end 802.11b AP's as it takes to provide coverage to your shop and store front (assuming you have tables out front or something).
3) Configure the AP's for public access, and use your shop's name for your SSID.
This will provide a decent level of Internet service for your customers with the minimum of maintenance and effort on your part. Most importantly, it will let you focus on your core business, which is coffee and sundries. Think of the Internet service purely as an amenity, like piped-in music or a TV in the corner, and treat it as a cost of doing business, not a profit center. Don't worry about how good the Internet service is, just concentrate on the coffee. Most people won't complain (loudly, anyway) about the quality of an amenity they are getting for free. Just set the appropriate expectations. The key phrase is... "best effort".
This will accomplish the real objective: bringing people into your store to buy your product, and keeping them there as long as possible (because hopefully, the longer they stay, the more product they buy), while at the same time minimizing your cost and overhead of providing the amenity.
But how many of them are able to use this theoretical nightstick? There's children, senior citizens, etc. onboard.
You've obviously never had to deal with a 5 year-old on a sugar high, armed with a whiffleball bat. Trust me, with a nightstick, they'd be deadly. And as for the senior citizens, my Grandma could beat a man to death with her handbag. Armed with a nightstick, she'd be like a ninja with a walker and a beehive hairdo.
Yes, screen for obvious threats like firearms and bombs with tools like x-ray machines, dogs, and chemical sniffers. But quit harrassing everyone by trying to find every nail file, screwdriver, pocket knife, etc.
The simple answer is: nightsticks. Issue every adult passenger a nightstick. Anybody tries something funny, there's a hundred people with hard, heavy sticks ready to pound his ass. I also expect that it should improve the service from the stewardesses. The airline could even put their logo on it, and let the passengers keep them as souveniers. It'd be good marketing!
On the other hand, some of the things you are allowed to take via checked baggage are pretty scary too- like firearms.
Why is that scary? The TSA allows people to transport *unloaded* firearms in checked luggage. So what? Checked luggage goes into the belly of the plane (safely out of reach from anyone except baggage handlers). The bag or case is clearly labeled by the ticket agent as containing a firearm and is sealed, and baggage check-in and pickup areas are outside of the secured terminal areas.
How else are hunters and sportmen supposed to transport their firearms when they go on a trip?
For example, suppose the top-left button had "A (red)", "B (green)", "C (yellow)", and "D (white)". To write the word "CAB", you'd hit the toggle button until the cursor was white, then you'd hit the top-left button. Then, you'd toggle until the cursor was red and hit the button. Finally, you would toggle until the cursor was green and then hit the button.
What was the toggle combination for "backspace"? Because you just spelled "DAB"...
My prediction is that we will see, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, followed by Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and possibly The Silver Chair. These "core" books feature a fairly contiguous story, and a steady progression of main characters.
The Horse and His Boy is very much a standalone tale with little to do with the other books in the series (other than the fact that it is set in Narnia and surrounding countries and features brief appearances by Aslan and the Four Children). I'm not sure it would fit well in a series of "sequels".
The Magician's Nephew is actually the prequel to the entire series, detailing the creation of Narnia, etc. It would be difficult (though, not impossible) to integrate it into a Narnia series if it was produced after LWW. Then again, I'm still holding out hope that Peter Jackson will make The Hobbit now that the Lord of the Rings series is complete. So maybe, the producers of the Narnia series will build fanbase with the "core" books first and then bring in The Magician's Nephew to wrap up the series.
However, I doubt The Last Battle will ever hit the silver screen. It was always my least favorite book of the series, for many of the reasons that would probably make it a poor film. It takes a long time to get rolling, it's really kind of a downer for much of the book (well, duh, it's about the end times), and the Christian religious undertones of the previous books become the overtones of The Last Battle. It clearly shifts from being a fantasy series to being a Christian theological tretise.
One other reason why The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle will likely NOT be made into films: without a major rewrite, they both paint the religion of Islam in a very unfavorable light, and in these times of post-9/11 issues of religious discrimination, would likely be more controversial than the studios would be willing to accept.
The original post mentioned a five-movie series, and I couldn't find anything in any of the links detailing what five books of the seven book series would be made. Maybe this was a typo on the submitter's part, or maybe I just missed the reference in the articles. But if in fact, there will be only five movies made, I would guess that The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle would be the ones to be dropped.
You'd get a funny look if you said you upgraded something to IOS 6.3.3, wouldn't you?
Maybe. Depends on the context. If someone told me they upgraded a PIX to IOS 6.3, I wouldn't think anything of it. Likewise, if they told me they upgraded a Catalyst to IOS 5.5. I would know what they meant. If they said they upgraded their Catalyst to IOS 12.2, I would also know what they meant. I'm pretty sure that's why Cisco uses the numbering scheme they use.
I'm curious what side of the business you're on. I've never heard a CCIE refer to a Cisco OS as anything other than its name.
I spent about 5 years working for a Cisco VAR, which means I spent a great deal of time talking to Cisco SE's and of course, TAC engineers. I've heard more than a couple of CCIE's refer to IOS in a generic context.
Now, I'm a sys/netadmin for a company with around 130 location across the US (and a boatload of Cisco gear). I and my cohorts likewise throw the term "IOS" around quite liberally.
Hell, in the 6500 series, you can have the chassis running CatOS, its Sups running two different IOSs...
Actually, the "chassis" doesn't run anything, and the Sups run CatOS (just do a 'show module' on your Cat to see for yourself). But I think you are making the point of a Sup running CatOS and the MSFC running IOS, thus having multiple OS's in one box/blade.
In that situation though, they are more conjoined twins than a singular entity. In fact, in our hardware naming system, the MSFC has a totally different designator than the Supervisor or chassis. So I wouldn't say "upgrade the IOS on that Cat". I'd say, "upgrade the IOS on XX03RM02" or "upgrade the IOS on XX03SW01". The designator makes it clear as to which software I am referring. XX03 is a site code, SW is a switch or Sup (thus CatOS) and RM is a router module or MSFC (thus IOS). Our hardware management database keeps track of the fact that XX03RM02 is conjoined with XX03SW01 and they are in the chassis with asset tag XYZ123.
The boys in my local Cisco office are all nomenclature geeks, so that might explain why everyone in this region is anal about names.
IOS is what is run on routers. IOS == Internetwork Operating System. PIX OS is completely different. Infact, Cisco has been spending lots of time trying to make PIX OS to look like IOS.
All pedantry aside, among those in the business, "IOS" is usually considered a generic term, meaning "the software that runs on a piece of Cisco hardware". Rarely, if ever, do I hear the specific terms "PIX OS" or "CatOS" bandied about. The only other common usage is simply "software." As in, "what software is on that box?"
So yes, the "Cisco University definition" of IOS is router-specific. But in the common usage it just means, "the software on that expensive blue boxy thing." However, feel free to nitpick to your heart's content. Just be sure to upgrade the software on your frickin' PIX.
127.0.0.1 is too obvious, using 192.168.1.100 (the default starting DHCP served address from Linksys broadband routers) is much more clever, even if it catches fewer people.
Well, I don't imagine it would really "catch" anyone (as in someone actually trying to pull a remote exploit on that IP thinking it is a legit address). So based purely on comedic value, I think 127.0.0.1 is much funnier (exactly because it is so obvious, and it conjures the image of a know-nothing h4X0r wannabe trying to crack 127.0.0.1). However, your mileage may vary.
Slashdot Mirror
Next, I'd be pissed at the guy who left the note. How dare he enter my home and invade my privacy!?! But, at the same time, I'd thank Ghod that it was some (semi-) honest citizen, rather than a crook. Else I would have come home to a missing tv, stereo, etc. The invasion of privacy is the price I paid. What I received for that price is knowledge that helped me secure my home against the REAL bad guys.
I think you are missing something here: the guy who broke into your house is a CROOK and is a REAL bad guy. Is he as bad as the guy who breaks in and steals your stuff? No. Is he as bad as the guy who breaks in and rapes your wife or girlfriend? No. But he IS a guy that broke into your house, and his motivation for doing so does not automatically absolve him of this crime. He IS a criminal, because he DID commit a crime (the crime of breaking and entering).
I also fail to see how this is a (semi-) honest person. He broke into another person's home. If he was (semi-) honest, he could have left a note outside the house saying "FYI, the lock you have on your door is very easy to break and you should replace it. Here is a list of good locks." without ever having to step inside.
I would argue that this person has no "good intentions", but rather he finds amusement in breaking in to other people's homes and derives some sort of self-satisfaction from his cleverness. The altruistic "advisory" to the homeowner is just some shallow moral justification for his actions, and is in reality just one more device to provide him satisfaction from the shock and horror of the homeowner. There are a lot of ways that he could improve homeowners' security, WITHOUT resorting to house-breaking. They just aren't as amusing, and what this guy is really after is his own personal amusement.
I'm willing to pay that price. I guess you'd rather 'feel' secure than 'be' secure.
No, I'd rather 'be' secure, and security means stopping all intruders - benevolent or otherwise. However, I don't ask for "benevolent volunteers" to test my security for me. I'll test it myself thanks. And if my security measures are lacking, I'll pay THAT price for my negligence and deal with it accordingly. You see, at my house I shoot intruders - all intruders. If I find you in my home, the excuse "I was testing your security" will not prevent you from being unloaded upon.
If these curious, benevolent house-breakers want to test people's security for them, they should accept the fact that not everyone will appreciate their efforts. Most will call the cops (as NYT did to Mr. Lamo), and some (like myself) will aggress the intruder directly. It will be the rare few (like yourself) who will thank them for their efforts. That is just reality, and anything else is idealistic fantasy (of course, that's where most of these guys operate anyway).
We HAVE to help this guy out. Jail is not right -- what he did was mere curiosity mixed with the desire to HELP these companies fix their network.
He did nothing of REAL financial damage. Please help him today (imagine if you were in HIS shoes!).
Thank you for reading this, friends. We, as a large tech community, have to get behind this guy and show others that mere EXPLORING is not to be looked down upon. What if we didn't explore Mars/Moon?
Pardon my frankness, but you are full of shit. If you came home and found this asshole sitting in your livingroom watching pay-per-view TV after having gone through all of your cabinets and drawers, would you say:
"Oh, no problem. What you did wasn't wrong. You were just being *curious* about what was in my house. You were just *exploring* when you went through my desk drawers and read all of my personal documents. You were just trying to *help* me by pointing out security vulnerabilities in my patio door and alarm system. Thanks so much!"
NO! You wouldn't. You'd call the cops after chasing the guy out of your house.
This isn't about exporing Mars. This is breaking and entering, pure and simple. It's time that people like this stop thinking the whole goddam world is here just to satisfy their personal "curiosity". To be perfectly blunt, you can take your Adrian Lamo Defense Fund and cram it up your ass. I want to see this guy do the maximum stretch as a lesson to other "curious" fellows.
I don't know, I've never heard of anyone saying:
"You'd better pick number 47 in tonight's PowerBall, or don't bother coming into work tomorrow."
Well, I can tell you that if I hit the PowerBall, I sure as shit wouldn't bother coming into work tomorrow anyway. But that's another issue entirely...
I know what you are saying about vote buying and strong-arming, but you can't just say "fuck it, let's just hope for the best" because there are going to be a few rare cases of corruption and extortion. There are no bullet-proof solutions.
Right now we have a system where a voter casts a ballot and has no confirmation that his vote was cast correctly and no way to prove he voted the way he did. I think that's something that needs to be fixed.
In order for a proper recount to be done, everyone who voted would have to bring their receipt. Having even 90% of the voters return their receipts would accomplish nothing if the vote was close. Most likely the original count would only be challenged if the vote was very close.
I also said that you could print a second receipt that goes into a big bin with all the other votes. The election board could use the paper ballots to doublecheck the voting machines.
The difference between the voting receipt and the ATM receipt is that voting is anonymous. You want there to be a provable link between you and your bank account. The same is not true for your vote.
But it's possible for the vote to be both anonymous and traceable by assigning a crypto hash to the vote when the vote is cast. The hash is logged with the vote, and printed on the paper receipt. Conceivably, the paper receipt could be verified against the recorded vote with the same hash to make sure that vote had not been altered.
Of course, my point was not that voter receipts should be the only method of verifying an election. Just that receipts give the voter confirmation that their vote has been cast appropriately when the transaction is done. It also gives them something to take home with them to remember the event. People like souveniers (perfect example, I once had a girlfriend that had the ticket stub to every movie, concert, or show she had ever been to stored in a big fishbowl - she was nuts, but cute!).
Potential for intimidation
No more than a lottery ticket.
Why not just have the voting machines print a receipt for the voter after they cast their ballot? For one, it'd be a great souvenier of the election. Secondly, if there was a challenge to the vote, concerned voters could bring their receipt to a recount.
Of course, the machine could also print a receipt for the election board as well and put it in a big bin, so that there's a paper ballot that can be recounted or verified by them if the election comes under question.
Electronic transactions are great, but you should get a paper receipt when it's done. Several times, I've actually had to prove to my bank that I really made a deposit to my account from an ATM because the deposit was lost/misapplied/eaten by ATM gnomes. If I hadn't had the paper receipt, I'd have been SOL.
Qcast for PS2 has been able todo this for years...
Yeah... but not *WELL*. I was an early QCast adopter, and thought it was pretty good. The old 1.x version had some issues (occasional audio sync problems, no ff/rw, etc), but all in all it was decent.
Then BroadQ came out with the 2.x version ala Game Shark Media Player, and things started to go south. First, they lowered the supported video spec from the 1.x standard, thus causing problems with almost all of my 16:9 movies ripped at resolutions larger than 512x384 (constant lock-ups). On top of that, their support has gone to pot (they just ignore email support requests now) and I question whether the company is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. You don't have to look very far for evidence of that. They've been promising for over 8 months to ship out new CD's to registered users to replace the original CD's that have trouble booting. I haven't seen mine yet. Have you?
So maybe if you've got a collection of low-res, low bitrate movies and you are one of the lucky few who own a CD that still boots, QCast is good for you. I wouldn't go recommending it to others, though. Personally, I shitcanned my copy of QCast, sold off my PS2 (because that's all I used it for), and just build myself a video client out of an old laptop to stream movies from my server to the TV. It may not have a pretty little GUI, but at least I can get through a movie without the damned thing locking up.
The National Science Foundation runs a scholarship for service program for IT Security focused students. Basically, you get a scholarship to major in an IT Security discipline, then you owe a certain number of years work to a government agency such as the NSA or the DHS. You can find more info at this site.
Note: this is not an endorsement, I have no direct knowledge of, nor experience with, this government program. It might suck ass. It might be great. I don't know. I'm just suggesting that you look into it.
Indeed, we are not nearly tactless enough with the bulk of the human population. But maybe this is a tack we should steer away from...
:^)
Yeah, yeah... bite me, Dictionary Boy.
Evolution in action. Obviously it only kills the dumb birds, the *smart* birds fly *around* the propellors...
I wish we could take this tact with the human population. I say, take the warning labels off of everything and let the chips fall where they may.
The way I see it, you should just forget about WEP keys, filtering, tip jars, and all of that crap. You are in the coffee shop business, not the cybercafe business.
Here's what I think you should do:
1) Get the cheapest DSL connection you can find in your area.
2) Buy as few low-end 802.11b AP's as it takes to provide coverage to your shop and store front (assuming you have tables out front or something).
3) Configure the AP's for public access, and use your shop's name for your SSID.
This will provide a decent level of Internet service for your customers with the minimum of maintenance and effort on your part. Most importantly, it will let you focus on your core business, which is coffee and sundries. Think of the Internet service purely as an amenity, like piped-in music or a TV in the corner, and treat it as a cost of doing business, not a profit center. Don't worry about how good the Internet service is, just concentrate on the coffee. Most people won't complain (loudly, anyway) about the quality of an amenity they are getting for free. Just set the appropriate expectations. The key phrase is... "best effort".
This will accomplish the real objective: bringing people into your store to buy your product, and keeping them there as long as possible (because hopefully, the longer they stay, the more product they buy), while at the same time minimizing your cost and overhead of providing the amenity.
But how many of them are able to use this theoretical nightstick? There's children, senior citizens, etc. onboard.
You've obviously never had to deal with a 5 year-old on a sugar high, armed with a whiffleball bat. Trust me, with a nightstick, they'd be deadly. And as for the senior citizens, my Grandma could beat a man to death with her handbag. Armed with a nightstick, she'd be like a ninja with a walker and a beehive hairdo.
As funny as it may be in theory, all it would take is a large amount of determined individuals with malicious intent to seize the plane.
A 747 can carry 400 passengers. Just how many terrorists have you got in mind? Even 50 hijackers would be outnumbered 7 to 1 in a nightstick fight.
Yes, screen for obvious threats like firearms and bombs with tools like x-ray machines, dogs, and chemical sniffers. But quit harrassing everyone by trying to find every nail file, screwdriver, pocket knife, etc.
The simple answer is: nightsticks. Issue every adult passenger a nightstick. Anybody tries something funny, there's a hundred people with hard, heavy sticks ready to pound his ass. I also expect that it should improve the service from the stewardesses. The airline could even put their logo on it, and let the passengers keep them as souveniers. It'd be good marketing!
On the other hand, some of the things you are allowed to take via checked baggage are pretty scary too- like firearms.
Why is that scary? The TSA allows people to transport *unloaded* firearms in checked luggage. So what? Checked luggage goes into the belly of the plane (safely out of reach from anyone except baggage handlers). The bag or case is clearly labeled by the ticket agent as containing a firearm and is sealed, and baggage check-in and pickup areas are outside of the secured terminal areas.
How else are hunters and sportmen supposed to transport their firearms when they go on a trip?
For example, suppose the top-left button had "A (red)", "B (green)", "C (yellow)", and "D (white)". To write the word "CAB", you'd hit the toggle button until the cursor was white, then you'd hit the top-left button. Then, you'd toggle until the cursor was red and hit the button. Finally, you would toggle until the cursor was green and then hit the button.
What was the toggle combination for "backspace"? Because you just spelled "DAB"...
Microsoft innovation is truly amazing. I bet they invent tabbed browsing next.
At Microsoft, R&D stands for "Rip-off & Duplicate".
Damn, I wish I hadn't blown my mod points already this morning.
+5 Funny, dude. And another +5 Insightful to boot.
My prediction is that we will see, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, followed by Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and possibly The Silver Chair. These "core" books feature a fairly contiguous story, and a steady progression of main characters.
The Horse and His Boy is very much a standalone tale with little to do with the other books in the series (other than the fact that it is set in Narnia and surrounding countries and features brief appearances by Aslan and the Four Children). I'm not sure it would fit well in a series of "sequels".
The Magician's Nephew is actually the prequel to the entire series, detailing the creation of Narnia, etc. It would be difficult (though, not impossible) to integrate it into a Narnia series if it was produced after LWW. Then again, I'm still holding out hope that Peter Jackson will make The Hobbit now that the Lord of the Rings series is complete. So maybe, the producers of the Narnia series will build fanbase with the "core" books first and then bring in The Magician's Nephew to wrap up the series.
However, I doubt The Last Battle will ever hit the silver screen. It was always my least favorite book of the series, for many of the reasons that would probably make it a poor film. It takes a long time to get rolling, it's really kind of a downer for much of the book (well, duh, it's about the end times), and the Christian religious undertones of the previous books become the overtones of The Last Battle. It clearly shifts from being a fantasy series to being a Christian theological tretise.
One other reason why The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle will likely NOT be made into films: without a major rewrite, they both paint the religion of Islam in a very unfavorable light, and in these times of post-9/11 issues of religious discrimination, would likely be more controversial than the studios would be willing to accept.
The original post mentioned a five-movie series, and I couldn't find anything in any of the links detailing what five books of the seven book series would be made. Maybe this was a typo on the submitter's part, or maybe I just missed the reference in the articles. But if in fact, there will be only five movies made, I would guess that The Horse and His Boy and The Last Battle would be the ones to be dropped.
Instead of going into the software business, he should have been an architect like his father.
You'd get a funny look if you said you upgraded something to IOS 6.3.3, wouldn't you?
Maybe. Depends on the context. If someone told me they upgraded a PIX to IOS 6.3, I wouldn't think anything of it. Likewise, if they told me they upgraded a Catalyst to IOS 5.5. I would know what they meant. If they said they upgraded their Catalyst to IOS 12.2, I would also know what they meant. I'm pretty sure that's why Cisco uses the numbering scheme they use.
I'm curious what side of the business you're on. I've never heard a CCIE refer to a Cisco OS as anything other than its name.
I spent about 5 years working for a Cisco VAR, which means I spent a great deal of time talking to Cisco SE's and of course, TAC engineers. I've heard more than a couple of CCIE's refer to IOS in a generic context.
Now, I'm a sys/netadmin for a company with around 130 location across the US (and a boatload of Cisco gear). I and my cohorts likewise throw the term "IOS" around quite liberally.
Hell, in the 6500 series, you can have the chassis running CatOS, its Sups running two different IOSs...
Actually, the "chassis" doesn't run anything, and the Sups run CatOS (just do a 'show module' on your Cat to see for yourself). But I think you are making the point of a Sup running CatOS and the MSFC running IOS, thus having multiple OS's in one box/blade.
In that situation though, they are more conjoined twins than a singular entity. In fact, in our hardware naming system, the MSFC has a totally different designator than the Supervisor or chassis. So I wouldn't say "upgrade the IOS on that Cat". I'd say, "upgrade the IOS on XX03RM02" or "upgrade the IOS on XX03SW01". The designator makes it clear as to which software I am referring. XX03 is a site code, SW is a switch or Sup (thus CatOS) and RM is a router module or MSFC (thus IOS). Our hardware management database keeps track of the fact that XX03RM02 is conjoined with XX03SW01 and they are in the chassis with asset tag XYZ123.
The boys in my local Cisco office are all nomenclature geeks, so that might explain why everyone in this region is anal about names.
That would explain it.
IOS is what is run on routers. IOS == Internetwork Operating System. PIX OS is completely different. Infact, Cisco has been spending lots of time trying to make PIX OS to look like IOS.
All pedantry aside, among those in the business, "IOS" is usually considered a generic term, meaning "the software that runs on a piece of Cisco hardware". Rarely, if ever, do I hear the specific terms "PIX OS" or "CatOS" bandied about. The only other common usage is simply "software." As in, "what software is on that box?"
So yes, the "Cisco University definition" of IOS is router-specific. But in the common usage it just means, "the software on that expensive blue boxy thing." However, feel free to nitpick to your heart's content. Just be sure to upgrade the software on your frickin' PIX.
127.0.0.1 is too obvious, using 192.168.1.100 (the default starting DHCP served address from Linksys broadband routers) is much more clever, even if it catches fewer people.
Well, I don't imagine it would really "catch" anyone (as in someone actually trying to pull a remote exploit on that IP thinking it is a legit address). So based purely on comedic value, I think 127.0.0.1 is much funnier (exactly because it is so obvious, and it conjures the image of a know-nothing h4X0r wannabe trying to crack 127.0.0.1). However, your mileage may vary.
The sig would be funnier if the IP was 127.0.0.1.