multihoming does little to stop a basic network DoS (I really wish people would stop saying "DDoS") attack, of course. once your link switches over, you may be okay for a minute, but then once the internet starts seeing your new route, it's back to being saturated all over again. I have done this multiple times in the past. of course, multihoming doesn't even do that when your uplink is toast, not to mention your uplink's uplink. it is funny how many people on this site know absolutely nothing about the subject (I'm not talking about you) but feel qualified to discuss it. DoS is NOT something that can be easily stopped in any way whatsoever. I'd venture to say that it's impossible to ever be stopped, by nature of what the internet actually is. I have a lot more experience and knowledge on this matter than 99% of the people posting in this thread, seemingly.
as someone else mentioned, if the traffic's already reached your network, nothing else matters. you can stop a light SYN flood at your router, sure, but you can't stop a network overload. we're not talking about intercepting virus payloads. these people seem to think that a DoS attack is something that John Travolta loads onto his computer with a mini-CD, and all you have to do is keep the data from reaching your network and you're safe. it's hilarious.
no, it's not hard to pull off a "DDOS" (in this case it's a DoS, and mayne not even distributed, but probably so). it doesn't cost money at all. it takes patience, though, if you don't already have access to the resources necessary.
rocks are not alive because COMPLEX life requires complex chemical reactions? that doesn't make any sense, and, besides, that was the whole point. life only requires things when defined a certain way.
hey, you said "wrongest!!!!!!!!!" also, you wrote "infecetion" in the grandparent post!! that makes four errors found by a spelling Nazi! what will you do now, chief?
and in this post, you wrote "a trolling devices!" FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
once upon a time there was a little bear. this bear had no legs or eyes. sometimes bears with no legs or eyes are eaten by foxes. this bear was not eaten by a fox. however, it had AIDS. in the interests of bears the world over, I would like to offer a formal apology for being so inconsiderate in my prior elocutions on bears. I did not intend any harm toward bears or bearkind. I like bears, especially if they have AIDS. but bears can be quite conniving, and that is something that I do not think is appropriate in modern human-bear relations. in order to bear the burden of these unbearing beariness, I think we should bare witness to bare principles, bearing in mind that such bearings must be keep, barely, in order for society to function for the sake of both bears and humans alike. beary good. I don't know how much I will have to type about bears; this has nothing to do with my post. however, bears are very curious and interesting creatures, and have a lot to offer to us. for instance, bears are cool.
but aside from bears, there are also horses, and horses always have eyes, but sometimes do have AIDS. this is because horses are from Africa, and Africa is full of AIDS, but Africa has no bears. this is a problem, and we should do something about the lack of bears in Africa. I think that we should send more bears to Africa, perhaps on the backs of horses; horses can carry lots of bears, especially big horses with legs.
I'm now on my third paragraph and I've told you a lot about bears and horses, but let me tell you about having sex with your mother. your mother is a whore, and she has AIDS. your mother is good at having sex. this is probably due to her training with bears. your mother watches a lot of History Channel, and they often have bear shows on past midnight. you can learn a lot about bears from these shows, but not so much about horses. horses are uninteresting, because they have legs. but sometimes the History Channel has shows about AIDS, and since these shows necessarily involve Africa, sometimes they also involve horses--obviously there are lots of horses in Africa, but no bears. if more bears were in Africa, more bears would have AIDS, and thus less bears wouldn't not have legs. fuck it. I don't feel like writing any more. I'll just take some exclamation points out.
Yes, I know it's easy to spoof/steal an IP address and all of that stuff
then you know something I don't. I won't get into the silly debate over the definition of the word "steal," but spoofing is nigh impossible if you want to have two-way communications over a protocol like TCP. it is trivially easy if you just want to perform a DoS attack or something of that nature. but I think most people conceive of the former rather than the latter when they envision spoofing. in this context, that's the way I see it. you cannot very reasonably impersonate another person with traditional "spoofing" methods, because it's impossible to receive packets destined for their address. "stealing" an IP address would involve something crazy and rare like BGP hijacking (it has happened before, though). if your upstream happens to be improperly configured, you can announce someone else's prefix, particularly a more specific prefix, and traffic may or may not be routed to you, depending.
it would be much easier to gain access to a machine already on said network and manage that way, but that's hardly the same thing as spoofing or "stealing an IP address." maybe I'm just being pedantic?
I've read this guy's assessment of the Virgina case and I thought he was pretty stupid then, as well, but I couldn't be bothered to respond. I don't think his conclusion is necessarily wrong, but many of the things he says are way off base. for instance, the judge is NOT drawing an analogy between an IP address and an address--that would make no sense, and, if that were the case, the rest of this blabbering summary would make no sense either. in fact, in the very first quote of the judge in question, he explicitly states that what he's talking about _IS_ the address. an IP address is not [necessarily] personally identifying information, and it is not biographical information. an address is much closer to the former and absolutely the latter. I do not see any analogy. the judge is stating simply that a person would not reasonably expect the information about their name and address to be private.
if there is an analogy, it is being able to map between IP addresses and physical addresses as one would be able to map between real names and physical addresses. but the judge is not even talking about IP addresses--he is merely saying that a physical address can be obtained via the ISP, and that no person would reasonably expect their address to be private from the state. I don't know if that's true or not. it certainly may not be true that this information should be legally obtainable without a warrant. I don't know whether that's the case under the law, but if there's nothing in your contract with your ISP stipulating otherwise, then I don't see why the ISP shouldn't be allowed to volunteer that information willingly--it's their service, their equipment, and their logs.
that said, what an IP address DOES do, instead of deliberating physical locality or personal identity, is tie certain actions to virtual identities, which can easily be reduced to a very small subset of people. that is what should be at hand: one should not reasonably expect an IP address to be private, because it is impossible to communicate over the internet without one, but should one expect a court to be able to identify an individual's whereabouts and behavior based upon this information? the analogy then would be more akin to something of the nature: imagine a shopping mall (or perhaps a club warehouse) that mandates each person partaking of its services register with full name and physical address and obtains an identity card which can be mapped to this information in one way or another, which said person must wear at all time. if the card contains a uniquely identifying number and must be placed visibly upon the person, then any police "on duty" inside of the shopping mall may be able to glimpse the virtual "address" of each individual customer. can the police take this uniquely identifying number, and, without a warrant, obtain the mall's records of where this person whose number it is has shopped, and what it has bought, or perhaps even obtain surveillance footage (maybe there's a grid of RFID-enabled cameras) of the customer moving about through the various stores?
I wouldn't think so. it may be also possible to determine credit card records and various other things with only the public-facing name of an individual, but that is not possible without a warrant, as far as I'm aware, at least without the card company deciding to volunteer this information (but I'm sure there're laws about that, not to mention contractual agreements with the companies).
and to pick some nits: not only is an IP address not geographical or biographical, but it is also assuredly not a ten digit number. it's [currently] 32 bits of information, which may be expressed in any number of ways. in dotted-quad format, of course, one could be anywhere from four to twelve numbers in length, but the numeral itself would actually be seven to fifteen "characters," and the number value would be (in decimal) from zero to 2^32-1.
rather easily, and there probably is. I'm guessing watermelons absorb red and possibly blue wavelengths to some degree, which would mean, in some sense, that light is shining on them, assuming there is any light around at all. if that's not true, the question still is entirely sensical, and you're only picking nits by challenging the definition of the word "color" in this context. not that there is any concrete definition of the word, but, precisely because of that, it's understood what the poster (and whomever originally wrote that) intended.
that said, the original 'argument' is still entirely flawed and based on many logical fallacies. the color of an object can easily be proven if we accept scientific precepts, particularly quantum mechanics. if you don't accept those, then, no, it can't be, and neither can anything else. what's the point?
you say 'oh, I may not agree with such and such thing, but that's the way it is' as if that has some relevancy to this thread. the entire point was whether these things should be done. the context of this thread was not about whether or not the government does certain things or whether they're allowed to do certain things, but rather about whether they should be doing those things and what we can do to stop them. if you want to take it back that far, it doesn't even make any damn sense.
there's also now precedent for our government to do many other things we don't like, but, suddenly, just because they "can" do those things, it doesn't matter?
Slashdot Mirror
asshole.
DONT.
your wife is pretty
it can't be--brian greene wrote a book saying that strings are, in fact, elegant.
so what you're saying is absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
multihoming does little to stop a basic network DoS (I really wish people would stop saying "DDoS") attack, of course. once your link switches over, you may be okay for a minute, but then once the internet starts seeing your new route, it's back to being saturated all over again. I have done this multiple times in the past. of course, multihoming doesn't even do that when your uplink is toast, not to mention your uplink's uplink. it is funny how many people on this site know absolutely nothing about the subject (I'm not talking about you) but feel qualified to discuss it. DoS is NOT something that can be easily stopped in any way whatsoever. I'd venture to say that it's impossible to ever be stopped, by nature of what the internet actually is. I have a lot more experience and knowledge on this matter than 99% of the people posting in this thread, seemingly.
as someone else mentioned, if the traffic's already reached your network, nothing else matters. you can stop a light SYN flood at your router, sure, but you can't stop a network overload. we're not talking about intercepting virus payloads. these people seem to think that a DoS attack is something that John Travolta loads onto his computer with a mini-CD, and all you have to do is keep the data from reaching your network and you're safe. it's hilarious.
no, it's not hard to pull off a "DDOS" (in this case it's a DoS, and mayne not even distributed, but probably so). it doesn't cost money at all. it takes patience, though, if you don't already have access to the resources necessary.
*LoL*
do you skip bad german posts? or bad spanish posts? in fact, I wasn't even aware that posts could have nationalities. the more you know..
it was probably just a capacitor. or did the whole power supply manage to fragment into pieces?
I am fairly sure that the correct term is "extremely low albedo comets."
rocks are not alive because COMPLEX life requires complex chemical reactions? that doesn't make any sense, and, besides, that was the whole point. life only requires things when defined a certain way.
hey, you said "wrongest!!!!!!!!!" also, you wrote "infecetion" in the grandparent post!! that makes four errors found by a spelling Nazi! what will you do now, chief?
and in this post, you wrote "a trolling devices!" FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
once upon a time there was a little bear. this bear had no legs or eyes. sometimes bears with no legs or eyes are eaten by foxes. this bear was not eaten by a fox. however, it had AIDS. in the interests of bears the world over, I would like to offer a formal apology for being so inconsiderate in my prior elocutions on bears. I did not intend any harm toward bears or bearkind. I like bears, especially if they have AIDS. but bears can be quite conniving, and that is something that I do not think is appropriate in modern human-bear relations. in order to bear the burden of these unbearing beariness, I think we should bare witness to bare principles, bearing in mind that such bearings must be keep, barely, in order for society to function for the sake of both bears and humans alike. beary good. I don't know how much I will have to type about bears; this has nothing to do with my post. however, bears are very curious and interesting creatures, and have a lot to offer to us. for instance, bears are cool.
but aside from bears, there are also horses, and horses always have eyes, but sometimes do have AIDS. this is because horses are from Africa, and Africa is full of AIDS, but Africa has no bears. this is a problem, and we should do something about the lack of bears in Africa. I think that we should send more bears to Africa, perhaps on the backs of horses; horses can carry lots of bears, especially big horses with legs.
I'm now on my third paragraph and I've told you a lot about bears and horses, but let me tell you about having sex with your mother. your mother is a whore, and she has AIDS. your mother is good at having sex. this is probably due to her training with bears. your mother watches a lot of History Channel, and they often have bear shows on past midnight. you can learn a lot about bears from these shows, but not so much about horses. horses are uninteresting, because they have legs. but sometimes the History Channel has shows about AIDS, and since these shows necessarily involve Africa, sometimes they also involve horses--obviously there are lots of horses in Africa, but no bears. if more bears were in Africa, more bears would have AIDS, and thus less bears wouldn't not have legs. fuck it. I don't feel like writing any more. I'll just take some exclamation points out.
(hello lameness filter)
fail. LOL!!!!!!!!! omigash i participated in outdated memeology!!!!!!11111eleventythree
shite. again.
yeah. I love Big Brother.
then you know something I don't. I won't get into the silly debate over the definition of the word "steal," but spoofing is nigh impossible if you want to have two-way communications over a protocol like TCP. it is trivially easy if you just want to perform a DoS attack or something of that nature. but I think most people conceive of the former rather than the latter when they envision spoofing.
in this context, that's the way I see it. you cannot very reasonably impersonate another person with traditional "spoofing" methods, because it's impossible to receive packets destined for their address. "stealing" an IP address would involve something crazy and rare like BGP hijacking (it has happened before, though). if your upstream happens to be improperly configured, you can announce someone else's prefix, particularly a more specific prefix, and traffic may or may not be routed to you, depending.
it would be much easier to gain access to a machine already on said network and manage that way, but that's hardly the same thing as spoofing or "stealing an IP address." maybe I'm just being pedantic?
I've read this guy's assessment of the Virgina case and I thought he was pretty stupid then, as well, but I couldn't be bothered to respond. I don't think his conclusion is necessarily wrong, but many of the things he says are way off base. for instance, the judge is NOT drawing an analogy between an IP address and an address--that would make no sense, and, if that were the case, the rest of this blabbering summary would make no sense either. in fact, in the very first quote of the judge in question, he explicitly states that what he's talking about _IS_ the address. an IP address is not [necessarily] personally identifying information, and it is not biographical information. an address is much closer to the former and absolutely the latter. I do not see any analogy. the judge is stating simply that a person would not reasonably expect the information about their name and address to be private.
if there is an analogy, it is being able to map between IP addresses and physical addresses as one would be able to map between real names and physical addresses. but the judge is not even talking about IP addresses--he is merely saying that a physical address can be obtained via the ISP, and that no person would reasonably expect their address to be private from the state. I don't know if that's true or not. it certainly may not be true that this information should be legally obtainable without a warrant. I don't know whether that's the case under the law, but if there's nothing in your contract with your ISP stipulating otherwise, then I don't see why the ISP shouldn't be allowed to volunteer that information willingly--it's their service, their equipment, and their logs.
that said, what an IP address DOES do, instead of deliberating physical locality or personal identity, is tie certain actions to virtual identities, which can easily be reduced to a very small subset of people. that is what should be at hand: one should not reasonably expect an IP address to be private, because it is impossible to communicate over the internet without one, but should one expect a court to be able to identify an individual's whereabouts and behavior based upon this information? the analogy then would be more akin to something of the nature: imagine a shopping mall (or perhaps a club warehouse) that mandates each person partaking of its services register with full name and physical address and obtains an identity card which can be mapped to this information in one way or another, which said person must wear at all time. if the card contains a uniquely identifying number and must be placed visibly upon the person, then any police "on duty" inside of the shopping mall may be able to glimpse the virtual "address" of each individual customer. can the police take this uniquely identifying number, and, without a warrant, obtain the mall's records of where this person whose number it is has shopped, and what it has bought, or perhaps even obtain surveillance footage (maybe there's a grid of RFID-enabled cameras) of the customer moving about through the various stores?
I wouldn't think so. it may be also possible to determine credit card records and various other things with only the public-facing name of an individual, but that is not possible without a warrant, as far as I'm aware, at least without the card company deciding to volunteer this information (but I'm sure there're laws about that, not to mention contractual agreements with the companies).
and to pick some nits: not only is an IP address not geographical or biographical, but it is also assuredly not a ten digit number. it's [currently] 32 bits of information, which may be expressed in any number of ways. in dotted-quad format, of course, one could be anywhere from four to twelve numbers in length, but the numeral itself would actually be seven to fifteen "characters," and the number value would be (in decimal) from zero to 2^32-1.
and spelling genius as "genious" is in-genius.
populace.
- "ignorant american"
I think he meant that he doesn't have a hard time IMAGINING the possibility of penguins existing at such a latitude.
rather easily, and there probably is. I'm guessing watermelons absorb red and possibly blue wavelengths to some degree, which would mean, in some sense, that light is shining on them, assuming there is any light around at all. if that's not true, the question still is entirely sensical, and you're only picking nits by challenging the definition of the word "color" in this context. not that there is any concrete definition of the word, but, precisely because of that, it's understood what the poster (and whomever originally wrote that) intended.
that said, the original 'argument' is still entirely flawed and based on many logical fallacies. the color of an object can easily be proven if we accept scientific precepts, particularly quantum mechanics. if you don't accept those, then, no, it can't be, and neither can anything else. what's the point?
pareidolia &c.
you say 'oh, I may not agree with such and such thing, but that's the way it is' as if that has some relevancy to this thread. the entire point was whether these things should be done. the context of this thread was not about whether or not the government does certain things or whether they're allowed to do certain things, but rather about whether they should be doing those things and what we can do to stop them. if you want to take it back that far, it doesn't even make any damn sense.
there's also now precedent for our government to do many other things we don't like, but, suddenly, just because they "can" do those things, it doesn't matter?
please do not introduce me to any of your acquaintances.
bravo.