The RFC proposal incorporates an additional bit. If you are going to send malicious packets, set the bit. If not then leave it clear. This is an easy solution to tell legit traffic from malicious packets.
Heh, and I loved the overview of the flags in the protocol.
And as to the harddrive platter idea - try getting dust inside your HD and see how long it lasts. The only reason optical media is more vulnerable is because it isnt hermetically sealed in with the reading electronics.
They are transmitting accross a public network, so in a sense many streams will be contended at one point or another. By splitting the data into 10 streams they are getting an advantage, as their data stream will in effect have a 10-fold priority over other internet traffic.
But what if this was done on a mass scale, and everyone used 10 streams to increase their transfer rate? I imagine the combined bandwidth would be as bad as a single stream was. Which I find questionable if its efficient, or a good thing for the Internet.
I personally believe that Iraq should be dealt with now rather than later when they may have acquired a lot more capacity for mass destruction. I understand that you may dissagree with war - that is another topic alltogether. Strictly speaking we were talking about the concept of America using the GPS systems to its advantage during a situation of war. To me this seems like a techologically sly and clever approach. Its not a matter of "hey, lets turn off GPS to piss off the world".
While I want to avoid a political discussion, it is worth noting that most of Europe (including the UK where I live) support the war. Admittedly there are variations in opinion, but I believe Germany and France are the only two main protesters. If we were to have a European GPS system, do you really believe during a war its owners would allow it to help Iraq?
What would that help? Are you saying that you are against the idea of scarambling the singnals when neccessary to prevent Iraqi missiles bombing our asses?
If Iraq are stupid enough to design technology to use during war, that relies on a signal transmitted by their enemy, I believe the idea of dissrupting that signal - locally and temporarily is very sly indeed.
What I find distrubing in the article is that newer GPS receivers wont be affected. How does that work, and isnt that a flaw unless they know for certain Iraqi missiles rely on the 'old' technology?
There are certain advantages. Firstly, you pay for the cost of an additonal monitor, keyboard, and mouse. You are left with several hundred dollars, which if you wanted could be used to improve the specification of the host PC.
Now if both users were continually running CPU intensive tasks, then there wouldnt be that much of an advantage. But in many cases such as web surfing, word proccessing, programming, etc, there is a lot of CPU cycles which are simply wasted - CPU usage is NOT constantly at 100%. In a sense contending this and investing in a single more powerful computer rather than a new pc with a lot of redundant hardware seems to make a lot more sense. On average each user will have the benefits of much higher peak performance when they need it, rather than being capped to 1/2 the potential speed of the system.
As to stabillity, I doubt it would be a major problem. I have been using Win 2000 server for a long time, and now I am using Windows.NET 2003 (release candidate). Whilst on occasions individual software becomes unstable, I have not had one occasion in which it brought the entire system down with it - and I run a small terminal services server allowing remote logins. The only time the entire system is down is when I mess up with device drivers, or when I need to add new hardware.
I find it hard to believe that "the true test" of Freedom of Speech means tolerating child porn.
You may find it "hard to believe". I feel as strongly as you against child pornography. However, if you truly believe in a system allowing freedom of speech, you also have to accept that the ability to speak freely and annonymously will inevitably be used by some people for purposes you strongly dissagree with.
Freedom of speech means accepting the ethics that everyone should have an equal right to publish whatever information they feel like publishing, no matter how much you or society dissagree with that information or the morals behind it.
So in short yes, I fully agree with the original extract from the FAQ. A true test for weather or not you believe in freedom of speech is to chose whatever topic you find revolting, immoral, and simply wrong. Then decide - would you be willing to give up your viewpoints that humans should have a fundamental right to freedom of expression, in order to stop certain information from being traded. No matter which way you look at it, it is the truest test of your beliefs.
So what you are saying is that in fact there should be no such thing as annonymous free speech?
Of course power to convey ideas, thoughts, or images annonymously and freely can be abused. There is no questioning that.
The only way to combat it would be not to support any project or means of communication which doesnt engage in censorship - which you seem to have chosen.
You either agree with 100% free speech - and accept its inherent scope for abuse and problems, or you believe human communication should be censored. The "I agree with free speech as long as it doesnt involve..." approach is *NOT* freedom - simply because it indicates some entity or organisation must proccess and control what is said.
That depends on how its implemented. Home automation can be a huge convenience - or if implemented badly, a huge inconvenience.
I have a custom made system. I can control garden lights, alarms, etc from a Windows CE based panel built into the kitchen wall. You may ask why. Well if it was just to control a light or two then theres no point.
But I can at a glance see if ive left any windows open around the house before going to sleep, turn off the garden and home lights and turn on the alarm at a press of the button. I can click a button and see a logfile of all numbers that called while ive been away. I can select an MP3 and have the speakers throught the house gently play in in the background. It may seem like an expensive and unneccesary luxury, but advancments in networking such as this web server are making it a cheap reallity.
If someone wants to look at porn they will just do so w/o sending 'reports' to anyone, or they will edit their reports.
This 'idea' will only be used by people who have nothing to hide, dont look at porn, and therefore wont be helped at all by it.
And I strongly believe that internet activity is PERSONAL and should be kept private. There are hundreds or reasons other than porn why you might not want to share your records with other people.
Longhorn looks promising in some ways. If developed correctly, it could have the capability to compete with unix or bsd-based platforms. Unfortunatly early indications show that Microsoft is fighting for the market by making Longhorn appeal to novice and inexperienced users, rather than fighting for technological superiority. Technologies like WinFS should be exploted to their full potential and the emphasis should be on functionality and not excessive ease of use. Microsoft should not give in to pressure from coorporations to implement destructive technologies such as palladium. Appealing to newbies is a short-term solution that will inevitably backfire if power users and developers become tempted to move away.
I wrote my own review with a bit more detail and thoughts. It is availible on www.betaone.net as well as below. My review assumes you had seen the previous M3 leaked build so doesnt go into details about the sidebar etc:
---- Well, I finally got around to installing Longhorn build 4008 on my laptop, and have decided to write a mini review. Rather than writing a full review of each possible screen, I will concentrate on changes from previous versions of windows.
Installation Behind the scenes a lot of changes have happened to the setup program.
* Rather than having all files in one folder (i386) there is now a directory dtructure in 'boot' which resembles the structure of the system once installed.
* Rather than having a text-mode preinstall upon booting the cd which then spawns a graphical setup, the entire Longhorn M4 setup is graphical. This seems to be based on Windows XP PE (preinstall edition).
The changes look very promising, although the GUI is clearly unfinished and seemingly rushed;
* In many places the wording is quite unproffesional
* You are informed you will be informed when you can "just walk away" and "setup will complete on its own". While setup requires little user interaction, you are not informed when your input is no longer required.
* There is a nice treeview for selecting the installation partition, but your options are quite limited. In XP you can select Fat32/NTFS, FULL/QUICK format. In LH M4 the only option you have is a checkbox - "Format this partition (NTFS)".
* The layout will need more work. Currently everything is centered, giving a kind of pyramid look. The previous setup style with several 'panels' proving information looked more visually pleasing.
I am sure the little flaws will be ironed out sooner or later, but one thing is for sure, a lot of work has gone into improving the setup wizard which until now had remained largely unchanged ever since windows 2000.
Visual and Features When longhorn M4 first starts, you are greeted with a much nicer screen than in Longhorn M3. In M3 there were a lot of visual imperfections and the plex theme looked worse than the luna theme on many windows. Now these imperfections have been ironed out and longhorn looks truly beuitiful as far as visuals are concerned.
The sidebar, in additional to being much nicer visually, now has a few essential features that were missing in M3. Namely, there is a tray icon tile, so you do not lose access to trayed programs when using the sidebar in place of the taskbar.
Glitches, Speed, Stability I tested M4 on modest hardware - a laptop with a 600Mhz P3 and 128MB of RAM. Longhorn ran SIGNIFICANTLY slower than.NET (which I was running previously). Even with the WinFS service disabled, the system runs painfuly slow.
After altering the screen resolution the sidebar seemed currupted. Hiding and then reenabling it made the sidebar completly invisible.
Stability is difficult to comment on because I have only been running LH for a short time so far. Till now I have not had a single crash or even error message.
Rant on WinFS's implementation A lot of effort seems to be going into WinFS. The idea behind it seems brilliant - store files in an SQL like database so you can search for files, run queries, and receive results in a fraction of a second rather than having to wait for the computer to scan through each folder and take several minutes to search through the entire drive. Unfortunatly if the implementation in M4 is anything to go by, MS are going in completly the wrong direction. The new search panel prompts the user to enter a search string "Example: 'Pictures from John' or 'What is a firewall?'". It can search both the local files. This seems very newbie-oriented. Computers are usless at interpreting natural language queries. They should do what they are good at - fast indexing by filenames and keywords in the files contents. Also, searching a local filesystem for a jpeg and searching the internet are two entirely different activities. Combining them into a single search seems to make no sense and will just confuse advanced users.
The current search system in XP is good enough as far as the interface is concerned (at least after you kill the faqing dog - again classic newbie-oriented bloat). You can search by filename, modified/created date, and a files contents. It is layed out in a perfectly logical way, and you know exactly what you are asking the computer to do. If only this was based on SQL and queries lasted under a second it would be perfect. Why replace this clean, logical interface with a textbox claims to supposedly understand plain english questions and automatically decide for you if you are looking for an email message, file, internet document, or application. Pointless artificial intelligence which will be far from perfect. I think ill stick with 'grep' and 'ls -R' - they do everthing I need them to.
Its a very nice project, but at the same time such a shame that after investing so much time and effort, in perhaps under two years time the same capacity will probably be availible in a single internal drive.
Yes, all you need is the key, no matter how you obtain it. The problem is if it is stored securely enough, its not possible to obtain.
A one-time-padd encryption method means you cant brute force the key, because you could generate a key to produce any data you want from the input message.
If they dont want people to use the information the way they do, why the hell are they publishing it on servers connected to a network not controlled by them...
I mean seriously, are they now telling us what packets and requests we are allowed to send over the internet?
By hosing an internet server they are accepting people can connect to it and send the data they like. If they dont like it, they should try and outsmart people with clever protecting software, or host it on their own private lans.
Scripts like this for both perl and PHP have existed for quite some time. They basically rely on one command like exec or system. In essence they just run whatever you pass them and spit out the output.
Since this got so much publicity I was expecting something new, such as the ability to interact with interactive programs. But it seems this one lacks that feature aswell, in essence making it a poor substitute for a real shell. Pico, micq, bitchx, su, passwd, any interactive program is UNUSABLE.
When the idea of 2.4GHz wi-fi interfering with military radar was first posted, it was clearly absurd. Cellphones emmit much more radiation on the same spectrum, and microwave ovens leak yet more still....
So does this mean that future phones and ovens will be designed to stop working when they receive a military radar signal, or is it the case of them singling out wi-fi for some strange reason?
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, and I loved the overview of the flags in the protocol.
Sure we can grasp that complexity?
Many optical disks are actually magneto-optical.
And as to the harddrive platter idea - try getting dust inside your HD and see how long it lasts. The only reason optical media is more vulnerable is because it isnt hermetically sealed in with the reading electronics.
They are transmitting accross a public network, so in a sense many streams will be contended at one point or another. By splitting the data into 10 streams they are getting an advantage, as their data stream will in effect have a 10-fold priority over other internet traffic.
But what if this was done on a mass scale, and everyone used 10 streams to increase their transfer rate? I imagine the combined bandwidth would be as bad as a single stream was. Which I find questionable if its efficient, or a good thing for the Internet.
I personally believe that Iraq should be dealt with now rather than later when they may have acquired a lot more capacity for mass destruction. I understand that you may dissagree with war - that is another topic alltogether. Strictly speaking we were talking about the concept of America using the GPS systems to its advantage during a situation of war. To me this seems like a techologically sly and clever approach. Its not a matter of "hey, lets turn off GPS to piss off the world".
While I want to avoid a political discussion, it is worth noting that most of Europe (including the UK where I live) support the war. Admittedly there are variations in opinion, but I believe Germany and France are the only two main protesters. If we were to have a European GPS system, do you really believe during a war its owners would allow it to help Iraq?
What would that help? Are you saying that you are against the idea of scarambling the singnals when neccessary to prevent Iraqi missiles bombing our asses?
If Iraq are stupid enough to design technology to use during war, that relies on a signal transmitted by their enemy, I believe the idea of dissrupting that signal - locally and temporarily is very sly indeed.
What I find distrubing in the article is that newer GPS receivers wont be affected. How does that work, and isnt that a flaw unless they know for certain Iraqi missiles rely on the 'old' technology?
There are certain advantages. Firstly, you pay for the cost of an additonal monitor, keyboard, and mouse. You are left with several hundred dollars, which if you wanted could be used to improve the specification of the host PC.
Now if both users were continually running CPU intensive tasks, then there wouldnt be that much of an advantage. But in many cases such as web surfing, word proccessing, programming, etc, there is a lot of CPU cycles which are simply wasted - CPU usage is NOT constantly at 100%. In a sense contending this and investing in a single more powerful computer rather than a new pc with a lot of redundant hardware seems to make a lot more sense. On average each user will have the benefits of much higher peak performance when they need it, rather than being capped to 1/2 the potential speed of the system.
As to stabillity, I doubt it would be a major problem. I have been using Win 2000 server for a long time, and now I am using Windows.NET 2003 (release candidate). Whilst on occasions individual software becomes unstable, I have not had one occasion in which it brought the entire system down with it - and I run a small terminal services server allowing remote logins. The only time the entire system is down is when I mess up with device drivers, or when I need to add new hardware.
I find it hard to believe that "the true test" of Freedom of Speech means tolerating child porn.
You may find it "hard to believe". I feel as strongly as you against child pornography. However, if you truly believe in a system allowing freedom of speech, you also have to accept that the ability to speak freely and annonymously will inevitably be used by some people for purposes you strongly dissagree with.
Freedom of speech means accepting the ethics that everyone should have an equal right to publish whatever information they feel like publishing, no matter how much you or society dissagree with that information or the morals behind it.
So in short yes, I fully agree with the original extract from the FAQ. A true test for weather or not you believe in freedom of speech is to chose whatever topic you find revolting, immoral, and simply wrong. Then decide - would you be willing to give up your viewpoints that humans should have a fundamental right to freedom of expression, in order to stop certain information from being traded. No matter which way you look at it, it is the truest test of your beliefs.
So what you are saying is that in fact there should be no such thing as annonymous free speech?
Of course power to convey ideas, thoughts, or images annonymously and freely can be abused. There is no questioning that.
The only way to combat it would be not to support any project or means of communication which doesnt engage in censorship - which you seem to have chosen.
You either agree with 100% free speech - and accept its inherent scope for abuse and problems, or you believe human communication should be censored. The "I agree with free speech as long as it doesnt involve..." approach is *NOT* freedom - simply because it indicates some entity or organisation must proccess and control what is said.
OMFG. I was trying to do that. I exceeded my 34 word limit, so I pressed the back button and corrected it.
:-/
Little did I realise the voice is reset back to default when I do so. I just got offered a blowjob from Charles
That depends on how its implemented. Home automation can be a huge convenience - or if implemented badly, a huge inconvenience.
I have a custom made system. I can control garden lights, alarms, etc from a Windows CE based panel built into the kitchen wall. You may ask why. Well if it was just to control a light or two then theres no point.
But I can at a glance see if ive left any windows open around the house before going to sleep, turn off the garden and home lights and turn on the alarm at a press of the button. I can click a button and see a logfile of all numbers that called while ive been away. I can select an MP3 and have the speakers throught the house gently play in in the background. It may seem like an expensive and unneccesary luxury, but advancments in networking such as this web server are making it a cheap reallity.
If someone wants to look at porn they will just do so w/o sending 'reports' to anyone, or they will edit their reports.
This 'idea' will only be used by people who have nothing to hide, dont look at porn, and therefore wont be helped at all by it.
And I strongly believe that internet activity is PERSONAL and should be kept private. There are hundreds or reasons other than porn why you might not want to share your records with other people.
if the hackers need any help, here are the most common passwords for my website...
;)
Alright, but whats your website address?
These would make good surveillance devices!
All we need is to implant it in a LIVE fly, add some wi-fi, and let it send some neural feedback?
http://www.avland.co.uk/sony/bdzs77/index.htm
>> High-level copyright protection with one generation copy protection
Its even listed as if it was a positive feature!
Longhorn looks promising in some ways. If developed correctly, it could have the capability to compete with unix or bsd-based platforms. Unfortunatly early indications show that Microsoft is fighting for the market by making Longhorn appeal to novice and inexperienced users, rather than fighting for technological superiority. Technologies like WinFS should be exploted to their full potential and the emphasis should be on functionality and not excessive ease of use. Microsoft should not give in to pressure from coorporations to implement destructive technologies such as palladium. Appealing to newbies is a short-term solution that will inevitably backfire if power users and developers become tempted to move away.
Of course not... you are bound by a non-disclosure agreement...
But how was I to know. The EULA on the version I downloaded said it was free to share, and you could write all the reviews you want...
You say its been tampered with?? MY GOSH, really? Not like you can just replace EULA.TXT.
I wrote my own review with a bit more detail and thoughts. It is availible on www.betaone.net as well as below. My review assumes you had seen the previous M3 leaked build so doesnt go into details about the sidebar etc:
.NET (which I was running previously). Even with the WinFS service disabled, the system runs painfuly slow.
----
Well, I finally got around to installing Longhorn build 4008 on my laptop, and have decided to write a mini review. Rather than writing a full review of each possible screen, I will concentrate on changes from previous versions of windows.
Installation
Behind the scenes a lot of changes have happened to the setup program.
* Rather than having all files in one folder (i386) there is now a directory dtructure in 'boot' which resembles the structure of the system once installed.
* Rather than having a text-mode preinstall upon booting the cd which then spawns a graphical setup, the entire Longhorn M4 setup is graphical. This seems to be based on Windows XP PE (preinstall edition).
The changes look very promising, although the GUI is clearly unfinished and seemingly rushed;
* In many places the wording is quite unproffesional
* You are informed you will be informed when you can "just walk away" and "setup will complete on its own". While setup requires little user interaction, you are not informed when your input is no longer required.
* There is a nice treeview for selecting the installation partition, but your options are quite limited. In XP you can select Fat32/NTFS, FULL/QUICK format. In LH M4 the only option you have is a checkbox - "Format this partition (NTFS)".
* The layout will need more work. Currently everything is centered, giving a kind of pyramid look. The previous setup style with several 'panels' proving information looked more visually pleasing.
I am sure the little flaws will be ironed out sooner or later, but one thing is for sure, a lot of work has gone into improving the setup wizard which until now had remained largely unchanged ever since windows 2000.
Visual and Features
When longhorn M4 first starts, you are greeted with a much nicer screen than in Longhorn M3. In M3 there were a lot of visual imperfections and the plex theme looked worse than the luna theme on many windows. Now these imperfections have been ironed out and longhorn looks truly beuitiful as far as visuals are concerned.
The sidebar, in additional to being much nicer visually, now has a few essential features that were missing in M3. Namely, there is a tray icon tile, so you do not lose access to trayed programs when using the sidebar in place of the taskbar.
Glitches, Speed, Stability
I tested M4 on modest hardware - a laptop with a 600Mhz P3 and 128MB of RAM. Longhorn ran SIGNIFICANTLY slower than
After altering the screen resolution the sidebar seemed currupted. Hiding and then reenabling it made the sidebar completly invisible.
Stability is difficult to comment on because I have only been running LH for a short time so far. Till now I have not had a single crash or even error message.
Rant on WinFS's implementation
A lot of effort seems to be going into WinFS. The idea behind it seems brilliant - store files in an SQL like database so you can search for files, run queries, and receive results in a fraction of a second rather than having to wait for the computer to scan through each folder and take several minutes to search through the entire drive. Unfortunatly if the implementation in M4 is anything to go by, MS are going in completly the wrong direction. The new search panel prompts the user to enter a search string "Example: 'Pictures from John' or 'What is a firewall?'". It can search both the local files. This seems very newbie-oriented. Computers are usless at interpreting natural language queries. They should do what they are good at - fast indexing by filenames and keywords in the files contents. Also, searching a local filesystem for a jpeg and searching the internet are two entirely different activities. Combining them into a single search seems to make no sense and will just confuse advanced users.
The current search system in XP is good enough as far as the interface is concerned (at least after you kill the faqing dog - again classic newbie-oriented bloat). You can search by filename, modified/created date, and a files contents. It is layed out in a perfectly logical way, and you know exactly what you are asking the computer to do. If only this was based on SQL and queries lasted under a second it would be perfect. Why replace this clean, logical interface with a textbox claims to supposedly understand plain english questions and automatically decide for you if you are looking for an email message, file, internet document, or application. Pointless artificial intelligence which will be far from perfect. I think ill stick with 'grep' and 'ls -R' - they do everthing I need them to.
Its a very nice project, but at the same time such a shame that after investing so much time and effort, in perhaps under two years time the same capacity will probably be availible in a single internal drive.
Yes, all you need is the key, no matter how you obtain it. The problem is if it is stored securely enough, its not possible to obtain.
A one-time-padd encryption method means you cant brute force the key, because you could generate a key to produce any data you want from the input message.
If they dont want people to use the information the way they do, why the hell are they publishing it on servers connected to a network not controlled by them...
I mean seriously, are they now telling us what packets and requests we are allowed to send over the internet?
By hosing an internet server they are accepting people can connect to it and send the data they like. If they dont like it, they should try and outsmart people with clever protecting software, or host it on their own private lans.
It is not possible to hack a computer system just because you decide to do so. Hacking relies on discovering flaws, often by accident.
Throwing money at a group of people to hack a system which could well be secure is a risky gamble.
And do you honestly think that iraqs key warefare systems are connected to a publicly accessible system like the internet?
Ahhh, well the term wi-fi referrs to the 802.11b standard. If you purchase two wi-fi devices, you are guaranteed compatibillity.
802.11g is/will be wi-fi, but 802.11a is just 802.11a.
Scripts like this for both perl and PHP have existed for quite some time. They basically rely on one command like exec or system. In essence they just run whatever you pass them and spit out the output.
Since this got so much publicity I was expecting something new, such as the ability to interact with interactive programs. But it seems this one lacks that feature aswell, in essence making it a poor substitute for a real shell. Pico, micq, bitchx, su, passwd, any interactive program is UNUSABLE.
That is its biggest limitation.
When the idea of 2.4GHz wi-fi interfering with military radar was first posted, it was clearly absurd. Cellphones emmit much more radiation on the same spectrum, and microwave ovens leak yet more still....
So does this mean that future phones and ovens will be designed to stop working when they receive a military radar signal, or is it the case of them singling out wi-fi for some strange reason?
The extra traffic would be a HUGE problem.
You have to remember the only damage caused by slammer was the traffic generated by effectively DDoSing the internet.
Making a worm which causes the same damage to prevent further exploitation of THAT PARTICULAR vulnerability is a flawed concept.