Here's the problem... if this was a "dirty trick" by the Republican side.... why in this much of an already red district? This was a safe seat that's now in jeopardy if this scandal goes much further.
You know an election has gone seriously wrong when the total number of votes reported in the Republican primary is not equal to the total voter Republican turnout in the same area.
Interesting here that WSJ is willing to open a hole in their paywall for users at Starbucks... typically this is done so that customers will get hooked on the concept and pay to have access everywhere. Could they be behind paying Starbucks' Internet service bill?
Really it's free-WiFi-as-long-as-we-have-a-sponsor that's catching on. AT&T sponsored it for their own customers at McDonald's and StarBucks for a while... now there's a deal in place to open it up to everybody, but that will likely only last as long as there's somebody other than Starbucks paying for it.
1999's era of Internet Cafes was in part created by the overheatted economy. Then when things got bad, business started to charge more for everything. Now the economy is showing signs of not getting worse, which is usually the first step towards getting better and....
IIS is really the USA/Russia space station. (Take two countries and call it International?) Anybody else who wants to use it has to rent a seat on the Space Shuttle or a Russian ship to get there... and with us about to scrap the Shuttle program, what's left?
Veto overrides are rare things in the United States Congress. They require two big super-majorities, and with most everything in the Senate going 59-41 on technical votes to block straight majority votes right now, the idea of getting 67 of them to agree on anything seems out of the realm of reality. Try again when there's 67 of a kind there.
There's a "use it or lose it" concept with government money. If your project fails, it's likely to never get funded again. If the project comes in under budget, the amount it didn't need gets subtracted from next year's budget. Basically, if there's no funding for it now... it's pretty easy to assume it may never be funded again.
The problem is, with whatever-will-replace-the-Shuttle system scrapped... we've got nothing capable of docking at IIS left. There's a few contractor projects in development so that problem will be solved shortly, but right now there's a void. If we can't maintain IIS without serious help, then just how are we going to build anything on top of that project? Some plans for a moon base would use IIS as a staging area... but if that project goes the way of SkyLab... just what is NASA exploring again?
Yep. All the money is now focused on things to serve the Earth (like a TV relays, spy pictures, or weather data) or serving wealthy earthlings who want to go into something almost zero gravity for a short stay. There's nobody interested in paying for Moon or Mars projects anymore it seems.
There's debate over whether we got a man on the moon, but this is more or less proving that with today's workforce we can't seem to do it. Commercial space efforts are springing up... but they're only focused on bringing money-making payloads like satellites and tourists into zero-gravity or a spot relative to the Earth, but not anywhere close to the moon.
Meanwhile, as this planet becomes less inhabitable, the idea of humanity continuing on the moon or Mars is gaining popularity... but who's going to fund development of such places? If the USA isn't funding NASA and the USSR isn't around to fund a competitor... just who's going to pay the bills?
So, are we smarter for not falling for another moon hoax, or stupider that we lost the ability to do something that was accomplished by our previous generation?
You must be new here. MAC addresses are sent in the clear for DHCP on an non-protected WiFi, and they are easily spoofed, that is, take another device and let it claim to be that same MAC address.
Yep. Just put the legal liability for any illegal activity done over the WiFi to the owner of the Internet gateway address unless they can tell you who did it and we'll be all set.
The difference between "accounts for guests" and "the guest account" is that one knows takes the time to identify who you're giving access to, and the other doesn't bother. Since there's a lot of money to be made when you know your customers better, that's the better solution for business places...
Yep, and you're also giving everyone within your network's airspace to sniff every packet you send, and it's trivial to spoof your MAC address at which point they're on your network and identified as you... you fail.
Yep, that's the direction I want to this to go. Make it easy for the admin/owner of the bandwidth in a place to control how they give it out, and easy for the user to take it or leave it.
Yep... there needs to be a way to make the registration easier... like a QR-style code that prints on your receipt, so we know everybody on the network is a paying customer, and meter out the bandwidth according to how much the owner cares about them. Then nobody's typing 128 bit keys, but we have the security of a frequently changing 128 bit key.
It's Steve's Keynote, and the announcement went out to the developers and media in the audience that all cell phones and PDAs must be turned off. This isn't just for information control, but also so the demos on stage will work. Not enough people listened, and the demos failed.
There's only 11 WiFi channels, and they overlap. Basically, if there's more than 11 WiFi networks in the auditorium, there's going to be problems. The owners of the space (in this case, Steve) should have some way to control the WiFi users in the room... and if they don't want to play by the rules then they shouldn't be in Steve's room.
and the MAC addresses are logged in case you want to add them to your security
You can do better than that. Tie the receipt with the temp code to the transaction that generated it. If they paid by credit card, you've got a name and identity. Even if they paid by cash, you've got the timestamp that you can take to the security camera and get a photo of the person.
Point is, nobody's download The Hurt Locker on this connection and not leaving us with a person to point to...
We need a standard for secure WiFi that allows guests in, most likely by giving them a personal shared key on their receipt or ticket. The big problem with unsecured WiFi is that there's no accountability. Some video-downloading hog can take all the bandwidth, and trying to use anything on 2.4 GHz during a Apple or Google developer conference presentation is near impossible. WiFi was a good first take, but we've got to work QoS and authentication in just like we have for wired just for safety's sake. Otherwise, these laws banning open WiFi actually make sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the problem... if this was a "dirty trick" by the Republican side.... why in this much of an already red district? This was a safe seat that's now in jeopardy if this scandal goes much further.
You know an election has gone seriously wrong when the total number of votes reported in the Republican primary is not equal to the total voter Republican turnout in the same area.
Interesting here that WSJ is willing to open a hole in their paywall for users at Starbucks... typically this is done so that customers will get hooked on the concept and pay to have access everywhere. Could they be behind paying Starbucks' Internet service bill?
Really it's free-WiFi-as-long-as-we-have-a-sponsor that's catching on. AT&T sponsored it for their own customers at McDonald's and StarBucks for a while... now there's a deal in place to open it up to everybody, but that will likely only last as long as there's somebody other than Starbucks paying for it.
1999's era of Internet Cafes was in part created by the overheatted economy. Then when things got bad, business started to charge more for everything. Now the economy is showing signs of not getting worse, which is usually the first step towards getting better and....
Recapping our top story... moon project scrapped.
The Dems in Congress aren't going to disagree with Dem President if they want to be re-elected... the DNC would pull their funding.
IIS is really the USA/Russia space station. (Take two countries and call it International?) Anybody else who wants to use it has to rent a seat on the Space Shuttle or a Russian ship to get there... and with us about to scrap the Shuttle program, what's left?
Veto overrides are rare things in the United States Congress. They require two big super-majorities, and with most everything in the Senate going 59-41 on technical votes to block straight majority votes right now, the idea of getting 67 of them to agree on anything seems out of the realm of reality. Try again when there's 67 of a kind there.
If not us, who? If not now, when?
There's a "use it or lose it" concept with government money. If your project fails, it's likely to never get funded again. If the project comes in under budget, the amount it didn't need gets subtracted from next year's budget. Basically, if there's no funding for it now... it's pretty easy to assume it may never be funded again.
The problem is, with whatever-will-replace-the-Shuttle system scrapped... we've got nothing capable of docking at IIS left. There's a few contractor projects in development so that problem will be solved shortly, but right now there's a void. If we can't maintain IIS without serious help, then just how are we going to build anything on top of that project? Some plans for a moon base would use IIS as a staging area... but if that project goes the way of SkyLab... just what is NASA exploring again?
Yep. All the money is now focused on things to serve the Earth (like a TV relays, spy pictures, or weather data) or serving wealthy earthlings who want to go into something almost zero gravity for a short stay. There's nobody interested in paying for Moon or Mars projects anymore it seems.
There's debate over whether we got a man on the moon, but this is more or less proving that with today's workforce we can't seem to do it. Commercial space efforts are springing up... but they're only focused on bringing money-making payloads like satellites and tourists into zero-gravity or a spot relative to the Earth, but not anywhere close to the moon.
Meanwhile, as this planet becomes less inhabitable, the idea of humanity continuing on the moon or Mars is gaining popularity... but who's going to fund development of such places? If the USA isn't funding NASA and the USSR isn't around to fund a competitor... just who's going to pay the bills?
So, are we smarter for not falling for another moon hoax, or stupider that we lost the ability to do something that was accomplished by our previous generation?
You must be new here. MAC addresses are sent in the clear for DHCP on an non-protected WiFi, and they are easily spoofed, that is, take another device and let it claim to be that same MAC address.
Can you xerox something you tivo'ed or would you have a mess that you'd have to kleenex up?
Yep. Just put the legal liability for any illegal activity done over the WiFi to the owner of the Internet gateway address unless they can tell you who did it and we'll be all set.
The difference between "accounts for guests" and "the guest account" is that one knows takes the time to identify who you're giving access to, and the other doesn't bother. Since there's a lot of money to be made when you know your customers better, that's the better solution for business places...
Yep, and you're also giving everyone within your network's airspace to sniff every packet you send, and it's trivial to spoof your MAC address at which point they're on your network and identified as you... you fail.
Yep, that's the direction I want to this to go. Make it easy for the admin/owner of the bandwidth in a place to control how they give it out, and easy for the user to take it or leave it.
Yep... there needs to be a way to make the registration easier... like a QR-style code that prints on your receipt, so we know everybody on the network is a paying customer, and meter out the bandwidth according to how much the owner cares about them. Then nobody's typing 128 bit keys, but we have the security of a frequently changing 128 bit key.
It's Steve's Keynote, and the announcement went out to the developers and media in the audience that all cell phones and PDAs must be turned off. This isn't just for information control, but also so the demos on stage will work. Not enough people listened, and the demos failed.
There's only 11 WiFi channels, and they overlap. Basically, if there's more than 11 WiFi networks in the auditorium, there's going to be problems. The owners of the space (in this case, Steve) should have some way to control the WiFi users in the room... and if they don't want to play by the rules then they shouldn't be in Steve's room.
and the MAC addresses are logged in case you want to add them to your security
You can do better than that. Tie the receipt with the temp code to the transaction that generated it. If they paid by credit card, you've got a name and identity. Even if they paid by cash, you've got the timestamp that you can take to the security camera and get a photo of the person.
Point is, nobody's download The Hurt Locker on this connection and not leaving us with a person to point to...
We need a standard for secure WiFi that allows guests in, most likely by giving them a personal shared key on their receipt or ticket. The big problem with unsecured WiFi is that there's no accountability. Some video-downloading hog can take all the bandwidth, and trying to use anything on 2.4 GHz during a Apple or Google developer conference presentation is near impossible. WiFi was a good first take, but we've got to work QoS and authentication in just like we have for wired just for safety's sake. Otherwise, these laws banning open WiFi actually make sense.
News time is approximate tonight due to NBA Finals coverage on ABC.
That's why I said "bandwidth and processing"...