If you are like me and believe that sites which simply trade hashes of illegal files should not themselves be illegal, you might want to consider heading over to www.lokitorrent.com and making a small donation to their legal defense fund.
Who knows - if one site acheives the budget to stand up for themselves in a legal battle, it might set a very welcome precedent.
It lets people know where to contact the admin. Could be useful if nearby AP operators wanted to link, or perhaps discuss the channel configuration in order to avoid interference.
The address isn't exactly top secret information, surely anyone near the area could easilly figure out what house the wireless signal is strongest near?
If you are *asked* to say you didn't shoot a toy gun, it doesn't take any significant mental effort to figure out what to say. There is no guilt, or stress in order to sound convincing. You simply recite what you were told to say.
Making the mouse power itsself from hand movements will not neccessarily make it lighter.
A heavier mouse has a large inertia, and hence a larger amount of energy is required to move it around. This energy could be harnessed to power the electronics.
If you make the mouse lighter, you need to put significantly less energy into accelerating it, so it's unlikely you can tap enough energy from the movment to power the optical sensor.
"Why is there someone on site during a session? Several reasons. Foremost is safety. The on site personnel have the same view as you and have the ability to override the firing signal if the firearm is aimed at something not supposed to be shot. A bird flying into the area for example. They are there to answer questions via e-mail, instant messaging, or web cams. They reset the system after each session and will be the primary scorer in competitions."
Because we all know people tend to ignore these warnings.
Errr, yes. Everyone I know has peeled off the stickers on their CD-RW drives, dismantled them, removed the laser and pointed it into their eyes while attempting to burn a CD.
It sounds like your friend hadn't set the volume levels correctly.
Most likely, the speakers were set to a very high volume, and this was compensated for by setting the volume level on Windows XP very low. The old DOS game ignored the WinXP volume level, and produced the maximum output the sound card was capable of.
If the speakers were set to produce a loud but non-destructive level of sound at the soundcards maximum output, this would never have happened. However badly the game was designed, it could not have made the soundcard produce an output higher than 5V pk-pk
Yeah, and it's a pain in the ass for potential customers, who will just end up going elsewhere rather than jumping through the neccessary hoops in order to send you an email.
My approach is much simpler. Set up a catchall, and give out a different address every time someone or some site asks for your addy.
eg:
slashdot@mydomain.com - when signing up to slashdot webqueries@mydomain.com - contact address on my website lsupport@mydomain.com - address on my letterhead somesite@mydomain.com - address I used for signing up to some site usenet@mydomain.com - reply address in usenet posts.
That way, when one address suddenly stats getting a lot of spam, I can not only block it witout affecting the majority of legitimate emails, but I know exactly how spammers obtained my address, and how to avoid it in the future.
It's quite a good firewall program, with some nice options like notifying you when an application attempts to spawn a child proccess, access files outside its working directory, change registry settings, etc.
Is this the usual anti-MS knee jerk reaction, or could you actually name any bugs in particular which haven't been fixed? I certainly couldn't name more than 20 bugs (I'm talking about bugs in the operating system, not instabilities linked to 3rd party device drivers, etc). The list seems pretty long to me, waaaaay longer than I would have expected.
"The next step is MANIPULATING, i.e. adding junk to a given binary file to allow you to choose the cheksum. that's the scary one!"
Fortunatly manipulating a file to have the checksum you want is a hell of a lot more difficult than finding a colision between two bits of random data which don't need to match any format or rules.
Generating two seperate but meaningful messages with the same hash is not a simple variant of the fist step. Currently it took 80000 CPU hours to generate two meaningless random strings with matching hashes.
The example you gave is actually much closer to step 3, than it is to step 1. You are manipulating junk at the end of a message to try and match the checksum. It's even more difficult since the junk needs to be a nice human readable number comprising of ascii characters '0'-'9'.
Are those experiences actually from the Windows Firewall in SP2? From your post it sounds as if you haven't even installed SP2 yet, and are basing your experiences on the firewall in WinXP without SP2, which is an older, much more basic version.
The SP2 firewall gives prompts when programs attempt to open ports, and is a lot more flexible than the firewall in previous versions which I always disabled.
I've had absolutly no problems enabling VNC. I simply add a VNC entry with the right ports to the allow list, just as I would for any other firewall.
Firstly, there were MD5 checksums posted on Neowin, and verified by a lot of people with access to the official release via the windows beta site. Unless a heck of a lot of people are in on the conspiracy, it's safe to assume the MD5 hashes are in fact valid.
Secondly, all official Microsoft updates, including service pack 2 are digitally signed by Micrsoft to prevent tampering.
My advice: Grow a little, do some research before you post, and take off your tin-foil hat. It looks incredibly silly.
The question is, should this 'addiction' be treated in the first place?
On one hand I think claiming to be 'internet addicted' to the extent that you cannot cope without the internet is a joke.
On the other I would consider myself to have a dependancy on the internet which could be classed as a mild addiction - I begin to feel like a part of me is missing when I need to spend a prolonged time away from the Internet.
I imagine the main reason I am so dependant on the Internet is convenient access to informaion. If I stumble accross anything I don't understand, or something I would like to know more about, I can obtain a wealth of information and endless user opinions after a few google queries.
When I am at a computer, I almost consider it to be an extension of my brain. Whilst my own brain keeps a record of personal memories and knowledge, the Internet lets me augment my own experiences and knowledge with that of other people.
Spending most of my life with access to the internet at my fingertips, I have got used to (and to a certain extend dependant on) the ability to instantly recall any phone number someone gave me 12 years ago. Or the ability to consult thousands of experts in any specialised field and receive a response within a few seconds. Or the ability to instantly share my experiences and discoveries with others who may find it interesting/useful. When that access isn't possible, is it that surprising that I feel as if something is missing?
Is thirst for knowledge really an addiction that should be treated like a mental illness and cured?
Slashdot Mirror
If you are like me and believe that sites which simply trade hashes of illegal files should not themselves be illegal, you might want to consider heading over to www.lokitorrent.com and making a small donation to their legal defense fund.
Who knows - if one site acheives the budget to stand up for themselves in a legal battle, it might set a very welcome precedent.
Why is that so funny?
It lets people know where to contact the admin. Could be useful if nearby AP operators wanted to link, or perhaps discuss the channel configuration in order to avoid interference.
The address isn't exactly top secret information, surely anyone near the area could easilly figure out what house the wireless signal is strongest near?
Yeah, but elements aren't supported on IE :)
Even then, the experiment is still flawed.
If you are *asked* to say you didn't shoot a toy gun, it doesn't take any significant mental effort to figure out what to say. There is no guilt, or stress in order to sound convincing. You simply recite what you were told to say.
Making the mouse power itsself from hand
movements will not neccessarily make it lighter.
A heavier mouse has a large inertia, and hence a larger amount of energy is required to move it around. This energy could be harnessed to power the electronics.
If you make the mouse lighter, you need to put significantly less energy into accelerating it, so it's unlikely you can tap enough energy from the movment to power the optical sensor.
From the site (www.live-shot.com)
"Why is there someone on site during a session?
Several reasons. Foremost is safety. The on site personnel have the same view as you and have the ability to override the firing signal if the firearm is aimed at something not supposed to be shot. A bird flying into the area for example. They are there to answer questions via e-mail, instant messaging, or web cams. They reset the system after each session and will be the primary scorer in competitions."
Because we all know people tend to ignore these warnings.
Errr, yes. Everyone I know has peeled off the stickers on their CD-RW drives, dismantled them, removed the laser and pointed it into their eyes while attempting to burn a CD.
I can spend, and have spent, years at a computer terminal leaving only briefly in order to empty my bladder and get some food...
However, disconnect that computer terminal from the internet, and there is only so much one can do.
Figure out a way to provide an IRC connection back to earth, and only then will you give geeks perfect living conditions.
This is actually a big problem... worms have successfully managed to DDoS some *major* sites.
:o
Now what if the target of a DDoS was AV companies live update servers?
Anti-virus programs would not be able to download virus signatures against the new worms, making them ineffective unless manually updated.
So my astrophysics bullshit generator at http://zone-mr.ath.cx/?act=bullshit consistently generates $1 million explanations?
It sounds like your friend hadn't set the volume levels correctly.
Most likely, the speakers were set to a very high volume, and this was compensated for by setting the volume level on Windows XP very low. The old DOS game ignored the WinXP volume level, and produced the maximum output the sound card was capable of.
If the speakers were set to produce a loud but non-destructive level of sound at the soundcards maximum output, this would never have happened. However badly the game was designed, it could not have made the soundcard produce an output higher than 5V pk-pk
Yeah, and it's a pain in the ass for potential customers, who will just end up going elsewhere rather than jumping through the neccessary hoops in order to send you an email.
My approach is much simpler. Set up a catchall, and give out a different address every time someone or some site asks for your addy.
eg:
slashdot@mydomain.com - when signing up to slashdot
webqueries@mydomain.com - contact address on my website
lsupport@mydomain.com - address on my letterhead
somesite@mydomain.com - address I used for signing up to some site
usenet@mydomain.com - reply address in usenet posts.
That way, when one address suddenly stats getting a lot of spam, I can not only block it witout affecting the majority of legitimate emails, but I know exactly how spammers obtained my address, and how to avoid it in the future.
I think Tiny Personal Firewall already does that.
0 22 904225965A0&offer=&pg=content&an=Windows_Security_ 1
http://www.tinysoftware.com/home/tiny2?s=494940
It's quite a good firewall program, with some nice options like notifying you when an application attempts to spawn a child proccess, access files outside its working directory, change registry settings, etc.
Yeah, but that junk cannot be complete and random gibberish. You need to rule out whitespaces and all none-printable characters.
Only 1 in 120892581961462 attempts would give a valid 10-digit number with characters '0'-'9'. So that 1 hour turns into 13800523054 years.
I expected a longer list... waaaaay longer!
Is this the usual anti-MS knee jerk reaction, or could you actually name any bugs in particular which haven't been fixed? I certainly couldn't name more than 20 bugs (I'm talking about bugs in the operating system, not instabilities linked to 3rd party device drivers, etc). The list seems pretty long to me, waaaaay longer than I would have expected.
This is step 3, which he mentioned:
"The next step is MANIPULATING, i.e. adding junk to a given binary file to allow you to choose the cheksum. that's the scary one!"
Fortunatly manipulating a file to have the checksum you want is a hell of a lot more difficult than finding a colision between two bits of random data which don't need to match any format or rules.
Generating two seperate but meaningful messages with the same hash is not a simple variant of the fist step. Currently it took 80000 CPU hours to generate two meaningless random strings with matching hashes.
The example you gave is actually much closer to step 3, than it is to step 1. You are manipulating junk at the end of a message to try and match the checksum. It's even more difficult since the junk needs to be a nice human readable number comprising of ascii characters '0'-'9'.
>> I think Apple already pulled it off better than anyone else -- but that's getting into a whole new hardware AND software investment.
>Strange. The Powerbook I'm posting this from seems to be based on Unix, and copes fine as a desktop workstation OS with a user-friendly GUI.
Surely reading BOTH lines in the original post before replying wouldn't have been that much of an effort.
Are those experiences actually from the Windows Firewall in SP2? From your post it sounds as if you haven't even installed SP2 yet, and are basing your experiences on the firewall in WinXP without SP2, which is an older, much more basic version.
The SP2 firewall gives prompts when programs attempt to open ports, and is a lot more flexible than the firewall in previous versions which I always disabled.
I've had absolutly no problems enabling VNC. I simply add a VNC entry with the right ports to the allow list, just as I would for any other firewall.
It's a perfectly standard acronym in the software development word. RC = Release Candidate, RTM = Release to manufacture, RTW = release to web.
On your crusade against acronyms, you didn't seem to object to Service Pack 2 being called SP2.
What's wrong with acronyms, unless they are abused (u r teh funny, lol).
Firstly, there were MD5 checksums posted on Neowin, and verified by a lot of people with access to the official release via the windows beta site. Unless a heck of a lot of people are in on the conspiracy, it's safe to assume the MD5 hashes are in fact valid.
Secondly, all official Microsoft updates, including service pack 2 are digitally signed by Micrsoft to prevent tampering.
My advice: Grow a little, do some research before you post, and take off your tin-foil hat. It looks incredibly silly.
Bullshit. You have more than 9 friends.
The question is, should this 'addiction' be treated in the first place?
On one hand I think claiming to be 'internet addicted' to the extent that you cannot cope without the internet is a joke.
On the other I would consider myself to have a dependancy on the internet which could be classed as a mild addiction - I begin to feel like a part of me is missing when I need to spend a prolonged time away from the Internet.
I imagine the main reason I am so dependant on the Internet is convenient access to informaion. If I stumble accross anything I don't understand, or something I would like to know more about, I can obtain a wealth of information and endless user opinions after a few google queries.
When I am at a computer, I almost consider it to be an extension of my brain. Whilst my own brain keeps a record of personal memories and knowledge, the Internet lets me augment my own experiences and knowledge with that of other people.
Spending most of my life with access to the internet at my fingertips, I have got used to (and to a certain extend dependant on) the ability to instantly recall any phone number someone gave me 12 years ago. Or the ability to consult thousands of experts in any specialised field and receive a response within a few seconds. Or the ability to instantly share my experiences and discoveries with others who may find it interesting/useful. When that access isn't possible, is it that surprising that I feel as if something is missing?
Is thirst for knowledge really an addiction that should be treated like a mental illness and cured?
They didn't go through your closet or your desk. They simply observed passively. They looked through the window on your closet/desk.
Strange that a quick google search reveals no reference whatsoever to that camera model.