It's no surprise that #2 is there, but the wording gives them away. It should be no surprise, since they come from Stanford. Just need someone to Fastlink them. Takers?
Just disable Java/Javascript in your browser when visiting that site. Right Click problem solved. Denial of Service problem, that's another issue completely.
Google: Obscurity + Stanford Policy != Security
on
Gmail Addresses For Sale
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This is what you get when the staff's doing it the Stanford way, thanks to Orkut. Orkut started the whole "invite and hype" model with the service of same name, and continues this policy today under Gmail. If anything, it'd do good to come clean before people who have enough clout to force it to happen, no matter what your euphemism or excuse is, given your common denominator. Obviously, they need to read up on true security, versus putting the backbone of things on close circles
that are easily broken when people start bragging about them. Refer to Operation Fastlink, something that would definitely clean house out of Orkut, and Google if applied to them. If you are going to run a private service, dont advertise.
It'd be nice if one could get what's behind those redactions without the pesky 50yr (hope-yer-dead-or-dont-care-anymore) wait. National security be damned.
Dunno about this one, but it's starting to look suspicious about what Google is up to with Gmail - since they've turned to the Orkut model - create demand by pissing off people, and justify it with something such as "trusted users". This time, it's being done with less fanfare, but same pissoff. To give it some air of legitimacy, they slap "BETA" on it and use it to deflect complaints. I wonder if this might be a long term thing on Google to leave the BETA marking on things, since I've seen next to nothing in their released to public projects previously done on the Orkut Model(or anything outside of their search engine). Also, my thoughts on their sincerity of wanting people to try it is that their sincerity is a lie, since they got away with it on orkut.
Maybe they need to stop looking to Stanford as their source of inspiration on how to do things - Just because it worked in your college doesnt mean you can extend elitism everywhere you go. Open things up, and you tend to piss off less.
Well, I'll just do whatever over highspeed, encrypted lines if I were in such insane situations. Packet shapers wont be able to tell much other than something encrypted (and fast) is going over that wire, to destinations of my choice.
Naw, just means you're going to need a LOT of CAT6/Fiber to wire the place. Say, about a MILE(or two) of it, since wifi would be pointless (unless the place has the retractable underground antenna stuff fucked up, rig it with 802.11 and have the ability to warspy from the comfort of the silo). Not to say you cant get good wifi coverage down the main halls and in the rooms, but dont put an AP in one room, and expect to have it travel many feet underground to you.
Unless that box is a Sun Ultra (1/2/5/10/30/60) loaded with QFE's, fiber interfaces, wireless via pcmcia, gigabit, or whatever sbus/pci interface can be stuck in them. Boxes that dont have to put cpu power to licensing, but to routing, blocking, layer2/3 data, and other more valuable things than revenue maintenance. W^X execute protection built in to the CPU, something non trivial. Also, some of those boxes can be filled with enough memory to deal with high loads.
Sorry Checkpoint, but some machines are good enough to compete.
However, you're going to have a field day with the IPSEC/SSH users who've found pipes unencumbered by such. That, and people who start getting plain evil and doing something about that filter. Not to mention when they've turned a P2P network's traffic into incomprehensible packets, and/or traffic that adapts to get highest queues to deal with the QoS problem. Good luck, it's only a matter of time before that packet shaper goes useless...
Very good points, indeed (one of the fortunate minority to not send this one downward!). I'll clarify where I originally meant this one to go.
Don't try to set up a "me against everyone" type of discussion, because it is both false (because I am merely part of slashdot) and self defeating (because you are part of slashdot).
Well, what was meant by that, was the majority of slashdot (low uid, high uid, and those who decide to AC) after(and before) 9/11 seems to have a surprising amount of a blind trust in those who defend our nation; even if the well-informed opinion of those who are in charge have inaccuracies in their conclusions, deliberate or unintentional. It's one thing for the/. and the public in general to get something wrong - it's only human. It's disturbing however, when the people who are responsible for major decisions(corporate,governmental) either go with incorrect information and not bother to verify the information at all - or let politics give incorrect information about the issue, sometimes with disastrous results. I'm not saying they should either take forever for the correct solution, or that they arent capable of making a correct decision - just that they should remember how much of a scale their decisions make. Just as those in the military (recent example: both sides in the Iraqi conflicts, even with the psyops) who had the knowledge, the ones who used it most effectively went in the direction that did not mean a certain, pointless bloodbath(sometimes for both sides to of the conflict to all live); the less effective ones deciding to care less and continue to go at it, if it meant some political or personal award.
As for the part about Al Qaeda, IANAOI/IANIOH (I am not Arab or Islamic/I am not Israeli or [of the] Hebrew [faith], the two prevalent groups in the Middle East that have gone against each other) - my perspective of this is a Catholic one, which from time to time can and has its own imperfections in it. To look at it, regardless if it's Al Qaeda wanting to impose their variation on an already extreme variety of Wahhabism (the belief system in Saudi Arabia where Osama bin Laden originally is from) on the world via terror, those in the US that you have named, or those in Israel(and beyond) who only know that it is more profitable to go for an encore of bloodshed, despite whatever has happened. I am not advocating distributed hate to all; that would be be taking the position of the betting house, taker of all that is in any bit of extremism. It is just tiring to see cultures that have been in both positions of opressor and oppressed for at least one time during known history "to go for the holy dollar, no matter who dies"(to paraphrase from Queensryche); to only end up coming up with extremism almost every time, to end up with them back where they started, switching places every few hundred years around known existence.
If anything, it is not me looking at slashdot (the site) although it is correct that you did call on the personal slant. It is myself looking through all of history and culture that I am currently aware of; seeing where the lack of correct information, the desire of humans to to overlook the correct information, and get the collisions that cause history to repeat itself- and I'm only (at this point) the observer who would rather divert from this self defeating route, but has to step back in to survive amongst the majority. Sometimes I forget that I've stepped back in, but with increasing wisdom, I find it possible to survive longer outside those who decide to live with ignorance and power.
Re:Not to mention unraveling the military hierarch
on
Guilty By Association
·
· Score: 1
except for a few unknown subjects, it's already been done. I'd highly doubt military specific info was in there, since it's mostly used by lawyers and some researchers.
Amazing. Seems that/. will also defend privacy when it's them or Israel(as in the EV1.net article), but never Al Qaeda. Sure, if you want to be onesided about it, but if you're going to be objective you're going to have to allow both sides the benefit of the doubt. Besides, most of the stuff giving the US the advantage, is a national secret.
Well, we'd have less of them (drones) if we could force those private institutions to drop selective admissions/prestige and start turning the useless drones you claim into more productive citizens. If you havent been paying attention to slashdot, a well known (and far from the Ivy League) "State" university, has dealt with something far from what a drone could know- if you arent comfortable with losing every single advantage elitism brings you.
Get a 4 door vehicle, and 3 random girls (or a 2 person vehicle, then you only need one in the car), and for each woman, type "hopingirl"(yeah, it's a cheat code, but I dont think they will advertise rape as an ability of the VC engine). Find somewhere secluded, park, and let the action happen. Best done when using a keyboard macro or gamepad macro. Rinse and repeat, you might be lucky and get the same three. Heck, you could even get away with one on the motorcycle - although Vercetti is the kind who wants some privacy if he can get it.
My current challenge is my Sun Ultra 5, which currently runs Debian (woody) with the 2.4.18 kernel it came with. I ended up building 64 bit SPARC gcc and friends as cross compilers on an x86 box. But hello world still doesn't link...:-(
You certainly do, since Ultra5's have relatively standard hardware (PCI), and well documented CPUs (UltraSPARC II). If there was a real challenge in Linux/SPARC, it'd be getting the SPARCStation 5/170's Fujitsu TurboSPARC CPU working right on any modern (2.4.24+/2.6.2+) kernel, even if it meant putting up with 2.6.x and its non-showstopper issues. Sure, it's a bit older than that ultra5 you have, but it'd be nice if one could have some stability on that CPU.(OpenBSD somehow got it right, but I wouldnt mind using a spare ZX framebuffer for more than just a system console or unaccelerated X11 display).
The other thing is, why you're going this route with a sparc64 system puzzles me, since you shouldnt have to crosscompile to get an ultra5 system working. (unless you're doing it for purely for a challenge, it's almost pointless)
IANASC, but
I don't care if he rebooted your DDoS box at 3am or not... the fact of the matter is foonet was a HUGE home for all sorts of black hat operatsion. Please go ask google, go read the blacklists, or observe federal raid for illegal activity. This doesn't happen for no reason.
As far as I've read of foonet, it seems that this seems more like sanctioned (but otherwise illegal) revenge. EFNet/NANOG/$EXPENSIVE_DATACENTER wanted them out, and the lists you refer to seem to put some cloud of mystery around foonet, other than it's just a "bad network". Saw the notice of them shutting down, and saw too many of their competitors, who will in no doubt, be marking up 300% in preparation for former foonet customers. Y
BTW, inside information doesnt mean you're not a L.E.O. of some sort.
Well, consider that the system Orkut is based on is from Stanford, where such a system was in place, and quite as mysterious itself as well as the prior two. I'd say the mystery comes from the people being of the Ivy League type imposing that kind of idea on a service - they think that exclusive factor somehow, weirdly helps. I'm sorta surprised nobody's tried knocking the service over. (bandwidth, server misconfiguration)
I just wish this technology was around when I was at uni, and laptops were not soley for the students whose family ran small Gulf Nations.
Not to burst your bubble, but he was looking for a Tablet PC. If it were economically viable now, Apple would already have a model out. To address your other concerns... 1. They are very small (esp. thin), very light weight, and very powerful. First of all, I can get all the power in a small package that rivals a lot of the fruit gallery. Hello, 600/600E/600X for a thin, and collegeworthy example, or a T40 for a modern example? That could have really outdone some stuff at your time, and (if you managed the battery right) still have something worth college work. 2. They have 54g wireless, firewire, usb, etc... Big deal, can have all of those on pcmcia if not onboard (and I/they am/are not vendor locked to the builtin kind as well!) or via USB. 3. You WILL buy an iPod eventually ...to shoot at, since a Compaq H3650(mind that this was stuff out during your time, substitute modern equivalent) w/ dual pcmcia sleeve and Travelstar 25E PCMCIA drive might be big/expensive, but that pair isnt encumbered by any of the limitations of current Apple designs (Standard notebook HD? Touchscreen? No default vendor lockins? 2 way transfer of any file in any format? Audio formats limited only by onboard, easily reconfigurable software?) 4. OSX is the best OS - Ever! OS wars are best left to other places. But I'll stick to DR17 if I want eyecandy. 5. The body is pretty robust. Cant speak for having one in my hands, but I dunno if I want titanium flakes in/on a laptop. 6. G4 iMacs are cool. This last one you will appreciate after about 1 month of uni/college. As for that, anything with on the high end ($2k+) wont have a problem in that department, not even with an IBM.
Slashdot Mirror
It's no surprise that #2 is there, but the wording gives them away. It should be no surprise, since they come from Stanford. Just need someone to Fastlink them. Takers?
Just disable Java/Javascript in your browser when visiting that site. Right Click problem solved. Denial of Service problem, that's another issue completely.
This is what you get when the staff's doing it the Stanford way, thanks to Orkut. Orkut started the whole "invite and hype" model with the service of same name, and continues this policy today under Gmail. If anything, it'd do good to come clean before people who have enough clout to force it to happen, no matter what your euphemism or excuse is, given your common denominator. Obviously, they need to read up on true security, versus putting the backbone of things on close circles that are easily broken when people start bragging about them. Refer to Operation Fastlink, something that would definitely clean house out of Orkut, and Google if applied to them. If you are going to run a private service, dont advertise.
It'd be nice if one could get what's behind those redactions without the pesky 50yr (hope-yer-dead-or-dont-care-anymore) wait. National security be damned.
Dunno about this one, but it's starting to look suspicious about what Google is up to with Gmail - since they've turned to the Orkut model - create demand by pissing off people, and justify it with something such as "trusted users". This time, it's being done with less fanfare, but same pissoff. To give it some air of legitimacy, they slap "BETA" on it and use it to deflect complaints. I wonder if this might be a long term thing on Google to leave the BETA marking on things, since I've seen next to nothing in their released to public projects previously done on the Orkut Model(or anything outside of their search engine). Also, my thoughts on their sincerity of wanting people to try it is that their sincerity is a lie, since they got away with it on orkut.
Maybe they need to stop looking to Stanford as their source of inspiration on how to do things - Just because it worked in your college doesnt mean you can extend elitism everywhere you go. Open things up, and you tend to piss off less.
Well, I'll just do whatever over highspeed, encrypted lines if I were in such insane situations. Packet shapers wont be able to tell much other than something encrypted (and fast) is going over that wire, to destinations of my choice.
Naw, just means you're going to need a LOT of CAT6/Fiber to wire the place. Say, about a MILE(or two) of it, since wifi would be pointless (unless the place has the retractable underground antenna stuff fucked up, rig it with 802.11 and have the ability to warspy from the comfort of the silo). Not to say you cant get good wifi coverage down the main halls and in the rooms, but dont put an AP in one room, and expect to have it travel many feet underground to you.
Unless that box is a Sun Ultra (1/2/5/10/30/60) loaded with QFE's, fiber interfaces, wireless via pcmcia, gigabit, or whatever sbus/pci interface can be stuck in them. Boxes that dont have to put cpu power to licensing, but to routing, blocking, layer2/3 data, and other more valuable things than revenue maintenance. W^X execute protection built in to the CPU, something non trivial. Also, some of those boxes can be filled with enough memory to deal with high loads.
Sorry Checkpoint, but some machines are good enough to compete.
If it's been pulled, now it's supposedly back.
(pulled off of a google cache of their site)
However, you're going to have a field day with the IPSEC/SSH users who've found pipes unencumbered by such. That, and people who start getting plain evil and doing something about that filter. Not to mention when they've turned a P2P network's traffic into incomprehensible packets, and/or traffic that adapts to get highest queues to deal with the QoS problem. Good luck, it's only a matter of time before that packet shaper goes useless...
...twice over.
Very good points, indeed (one of the fortunate minority to not send this one downward!). I'll clarify where I originally meant this one to go.
/. and the public in general to get something wrong - it's only human. It's disturbing however, when the people who are responsible for major decisions(corporate,governmental) either go with incorrect information and not bother to verify the information at all - or let politics give incorrect information about the issue, sometimes with disastrous results. I'm not saying they should either take forever for the correct solution, or that they arent capable of making a correct decision - just that they should remember how much of a scale their decisions make. Just as those in the military (recent example: both sides in the Iraqi conflicts, even with the psyops) who had the knowledge, the ones who used it most effectively went in the direction that did not mean a certain, pointless bloodbath(sometimes for both sides to of the conflict to all live); the less effective ones deciding to care less and continue to go at it, if it meant some political or personal award.
Don't try to set up a "me against everyone" type of discussion, because it is both false (because I am merely part of slashdot) and self defeating (because you are part of slashdot).
Well, what was meant by that, was the majority of slashdot (low uid, high uid, and those who decide to AC) after(and before) 9/11 seems to have a surprising amount of a blind trust in those who defend our nation; even if the well-informed opinion of those who are in charge have inaccuracies in their conclusions, deliberate or unintentional. It's one thing for the
As for the part about Al Qaeda, IANAOI/IANIOH (I am not Arab or Islamic/I am not Israeli or [of the] Hebrew [faith], the two prevalent groups in the Middle East that have gone against each other) - my perspective of this is a Catholic one, which from time to time can and has its own imperfections in it. To look at it, regardless if it's Al Qaeda wanting to impose their variation on an already extreme variety of Wahhabism (the belief system in Saudi Arabia where Osama bin Laden originally is from) on the world via terror, those in the US that you have named, or those in Israel(and beyond) who only know that it is more profitable to go for an encore of bloodshed, despite whatever has happened. I am not advocating distributed hate to all; that would be be taking the position of the betting house, taker of all that is in any bit of extremism. It is just tiring to see cultures that have been in both positions of opressor and oppressed for at least one time during known history "to go for the holy dollar, no matter who dies"(to paraphrase from Queensryche); to only end up coming up with extremism almost every time, to end up with them back where they started, switching places every few hundred years around known existence.
If anything, it is not me looking at slashdot (the site) although it is correct that you did call on the personal slant. It is myself looking through all of history and culture that I am currently aware of; seeing where the lack of correct information, the desire of humans to to overlook the correct information, and get the collisions that cause history to repeat itself- and I'm only (at this point) the observer who would rather divert from this self defeating route, but has to step back in to survive amongst the majority. Sometimes I forget that I've stepped back in, but with increasing wisdom, I find it possible to survive longer outside those who decide to live with ignorance and power.
except for a few unknown subjects, it's already been done.
I'd highly doubt military specific info was in there, since it's mostly used by lawyers and some researchers.
In order to do that, you'd have to obliterate New England and its closed communities off the map to start that one.
Amazing. Seems that /. will also defend privacy when it's them or Israel(as in the EV1.net article), but never Al Qaeda. Sure, if you want to be onesided about it, but if you're going to be objective you're going to have to allow both sides the benefit of the doubt. Besides, most of the stuff giving the US the advantage, is a national secret.
At the prices they're going for, I'm surprised nobody's tried to find something to force the non-848's to do 4 way SMP.
Well, we'd have less of them (drones) if we could force those private institutions to drop selective admissions/prestige and start turning the useless drones you claim into more productive citizens. If you havent been paying attention to slashdot, a well known (and far from the Ivy League) "State" university, has dealt with something far from what a drone could know- if you arent comfortable with losing every single advantage elitism brings you.
Get a 4 door vehicle, and 3 random girls (or a 2 person vehicle, then you only need one in the car), and for each woman, type "hopingirl"(yeah, it's a cheat code, but I dont think they will advertise rape as an ability of the VC engine). Find somewhere secluded, park, and let the action happen. Best done when using a keyboard macro or gamepad macro. Rinse and repeat, you might be lucky and get the same three. Heck, you could even get away with one on the motorcycle - although Vercetti is the kind who wants some privacy if he can get it.
My current challenge is my Sun Ultra 5, which currently runs Debian (woody) with the 2.4.18 kernel it came with. I ended up building 64 bit SPARC gcc and friends as cross compilers on an x86 box. But hello world still doesn't link... :-(
You certainly do, since Ultra5's have relatively standard hardware (PCI), and well documented CPUs (UltraSPARC II). If there was a real challenge in Linux/SPARC, it'd be getting the SPARCStation 5/170's Fujitsu TurboSPARC CPU working right on any modern (2.4.24+/2.6.2+) kernel, even if it meant putting up with 2.6.x and its non-showstopper issues. Sure, it's a bit older than that ultra5 you have, but it'd be nice if one could have some stability on that CPU.(OpenBSD somehow got it right, but I wouldnt mind using a spare ZX framebuffer for more than just a system console or unaccelerated X11 display).
The other thing is, why you're going this route with a sparc64 system puzzles me, since you shouldnt have to crosscompile to get an ultra5 system working. (unless you're doing it for purely for a challenge, it's almost pointless)
Another one you could try is the following: Sure, I was about to say, KILLS for the speed, but this ought to do.
SVT COBRA VIN#12345
WINDSHIELD WIPERS:FLIPPING YOU OFF
HEADLIGHTS: PLAID
SPEED: LIGHT
At best, he did a vivisection on the ipod, and something went wrong with it. It's not dissection unless they're dead when they go under the knife.
IANASC, but
I don't care if he rebooted your DDoS box at 3am or not... the fact of the matter is foonet was a HUGE home for all sorts of black hat operatsion. Please go ask google, go read the blacklists, or observe federal raid for illegal activity. This doesn't happen for no reason.
As far as I've read of foonet, it seems that this seems more like sanctioned (but otherwise illegal) revenge. EFNet/NANOG/$EXPENSIVE_DATACENTER wanted them out, and the lists you refer to seem to put some cloud of mystery around foonet, other than it's just a "bad network". Saw the notice of them shutting down, and saw too many of their competitors, who will in no doubt, be marking up 300% in preparation for former foonet customers. Y BTW, inside information doesnt mean you're not a L.E.O. of some sort.
Well, consider that the system Orkut is based on is from Stanford, where such a system was in place, and quite as mysterious itself as well as the prior two. I'd say the mystery comes from the people being of the Ivy League type imposing that kind of idea on a service - they think that exclusive factor somehow, weirdly helps. I'm sorta surprised nobody's tried knocking the service over. (bandwidth, server misconfiguration)
I just wish this technology was around when I was at uni, and laptops were not soley for the students whose family ran small Gulf Nations.
Not to burst your bubble, but he was looking for a Tablet PC. If it were economically viable now, Apple would already have a model out. To address your other concerns...
1. They are very small (esp. thin), very light weight, and very powerful.
First of all, I can get all the power in a small package that rivals a lot of the fruit gallery. Hello, 600/600E/600X for a thin, and collegeworthy example, or a T40 for a modern example? That could have really outdone some stuff at your time, and (if you managed the battery right) still have something worth college work.
2. They have 54g wireless, firewire, usb, etc...
Big deal, can have all of those on pcmcia if not onboard (and I/they am/are not vendor locked to the builtin kind as well!) or via USB.
3. You WILL buy an iPod eventually
...to shoot at, since a Compaq H3650(mind that this was stuff out during your time, substitute modern equivalent) w/ dual pcmcia sleeve and Travelstar 25E PCMCIA drive might be big/expensive, but that pair isnt encumbered by any of the limitations of current Apple designs (Standard notebook HD? Touchscreen? No default vendor lockins? 2 way transfer of any file in any format? Audio formats limited only by onboard, easily reconfigurable software?)
4. OSX is the best OS - Ever!
OS wars are best left to other places. But I'll stick to DR17 if I want eyecandy.
5. The body is pretty robust.
Cant speak for having one in my hands, but I dunno if I want titanium flakes in/on a laptop.
6. G4 iMacs are cool. This last one you will appreciate after about 1 month of uni/college.
As for that, anything with on the high end ($2k+) wont have a problem in that department, not even with an IBM.
Already been done ages ago - IBM Thinkpad 730T/TE and well known. Sure, this wasnt palmos, but it was in the ballpark of the devices you wanted.