Parents already have a legal responsibility to pay for their kids with or without anti-gambling laws. If they aren't doing that, it does not matter how or why. Thinking like you do just promotes nanny-state-ism and denies freedom and responsibility.
Can you write software for the S60 or anything similar and easily run it on your phone without anyone else's (like Nokia's) permission? Does the vendor try to get in the way of you doing this? Can you publish the programs you write on your own website and can others run them on their own phones without any permission or help from the vendor? I am interested in a phone on which I can do this and is why the iPhone isn't it.
Brush up on your 3rd grade reading comprehension skills. You don't have to check it every time. You're not paranoid enough to check the SSL cert once, yet you're paranoid to check an obscure page every time? The people who provide DNS can't "fix" it. There is no security built in to it and probably never will be. Its not their job.
A virus in your machine? If the machine you're typing all your passwords and personal information into is under the control of someone else then checking for an obscure page does not improve the safety of that information.
So you - gasp - VERIFY who your SSL connection is with. Make sure you're typing the correct URL - the one your bank writes on your statements, and check the certificate. That's what the lock icon is there for. Bookmark the correct site and use it.
How did this nonsense get modded up to 5? I thought this was a computer geek site.
We've had solutions for this sort of attack for a long, long time now. If you want to access your bank, type httpS://bank every time. Bookmark it if you want. There, now you're safe from DNS spoofing attacks and you don't have to do this silly and insecure "check for an obscure page" garbage either.
Attacker's and victim's shared public network: 10.0.0.0/24 attacker's public IP address: 10.0.0.1 victim's public IP address: 10.0.0.2 victim's private NATed IP network: 192.168.0.0/24
Actually NAT DOES provide some sort of security. That is because by default nobody can see which devices sit behind the NAT. They also can't directly address them.
The problem is, you are not in control of who can route to your NATted networks or not. Anyone on the same network outside your firewall can add a route to your private network via your firewall's address on that network. The only way you can stop their traffic is with filter rules. And using those with private addresses is no different than using those with public addresses.
Hmmm... So hardware that is months old is 'antique' to you... I bet hardware companies really love your stupidity. That bug was first reported 2004-11-02.
The bug was there all along. It was reported even when the card was being sold. Just waiting a few years until the card isn't being sold anymore and then shrugging their shoulders and telling people to buy newer hardware is hardly an acceptable response.
No they aren't. My laptop came with an ipw2100. If in the presence of more than a few APs the card will hang and the driver will restart it, hanging everything for a second or two. This is a bug that has been known about for years and still isn't fixed. I gave up waiting for them a while ago and replaced the piece of crap with an Atheros card. No more hangs.
all resolve to the same two IP addrs: 87.106.162.82 88.80.13.160
wikileaks.org.uk cauce.us
both resolve to 88.80.13.160 (same as one above).
No big mystery why all of those might be down.
wikileaks.cx wikileaks.be secure.libertypen.org
are responding just fine (minus libertypen) on http (not ssl) with the page of a domain squatter. According to google cache, those have been the pages of squatters/linkfarms since at least Sat Sept 14.
The only reason your AV program flagged it was because somewhere, some computer was already infected with it. By relying on AV you're just relying on luck - being lucky enough to only be exposed to bad things a while after the AV company found them.
Hopefully that comic isn't a sign of things to come. Impossible to bookmark where you are because the URL is always the same because they use some javascript nonsense to change pages... you hit the next link and it sends you to the top of the page BEFORE the next image loads... the browser throbber & status bar don't work.
You choose to run an operating system knowing full well it wouldn't work with flash or silverlight. Don't blame your mistakes on others or expect them to cater to your decision.
Because it would make internet routing tables too large. Instead of a route for a whole ISP that says "10.0.0.0/20 via interface0" you wind up with "10.0.0.0/24 via interface0; 10.0.0.1/24 via interface1; 10.0.0.2/24 via interface0;" etc...
You know what? You have no rights to my private network. NAT keeps you out of my affairs. It causes me some troubles, yes, but those troubles are far less costly then letting you snoop around my network.
Firewalls that filter my data without going through a "portal" like a public/private address space are too insecure for me to trust. I feel much beter knowing you cannot, realistically, route into my network. A network that was [public-ip] [firewall] [public-ip] means once an attacker gets through the firewall, it is much easier to route packets in and out.
You don't know what you're talking about. What on earth is this "portal"?? NAT doesn't keep people out of your affairs. Some people, perhaps many people, CAN route to your network. If your ISP created a route for your RFC1918 blocks, everyone connected to that ISP would be able to get into your affairs if you don't have a firewall that drops those packets. Practically all cable ISPs and some DSL providers plop all their customers on one big logical ethernet. Any of those people can, in theory, set up a route for your private network gateway via your public IP address.
The ONLY thing keeping all these people off your network is your firewall. And guess what? That firewall works exactly the same way without NAT.
The issue isn't whether or not someone has the right to keep "rented" bits, the issue is wether or not someone who doesn't own your computer has the right to any control over your computer. The desire of copyright holders to enforce their copyrights and licenses and people's control over their own computers is conflicting. If preserving the later means the death of copyright, as you put it, then I'm all for copyright dying as quickly as possible. And I say this as a copyright holder. I'll take a world without copyright than this world any day.
Thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These temperatures cannot be reached with conventional black powder fuses, nitrocellulose rods, detonators, a suitable pyrotechnic initiator, or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction.
Yeah, clean except for the stench of putrefaction and the blood stains? [...] (Clean is a different matter but I'm not sure how littering the subways with the bodies of people you determine have the intent to commit petty theft will really improve that situation)
Good point. Before beating them hard enough to cause blood loss we should remove them from the train.
I've taken public transportation in every major city in the US and never found it unsafe
HAHAHAAHA... Oh - clearly you meant you rode with an assault rifle hung over your shoulder. Yeah, that would effectively stave off the thieves as well as the shovers, pick pockets, and loud, disrespectful ghetto trash.
But based on your comments it sounds like you'd be more comfortable under, say, Taliban rule.
Taliban rule based on my comments? Hmm, I can't seem to find where it is I said I want to execute women for not covering their heads or not believing in particular flavor of Islam. Maybe you could help me out here and paste a link. All I can remember ever wanting is to be left alone, but hey, my memory isn't perfect.
Are you seriously suggesting that they deserved to be shot for having the intent to steal five dollars?
No. They should have been beaten repeatedly and then hanged in front of a bus stop or subway station with the dead bodies left to hang there until they became a health hazard. The entire thing should have been video taped and replays played around the stops also.
Perhaps then public transportation would be safe and clean again and people who use it left alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Ooops, you're right. Your post starts off reading like a lot of pro-nanny-state fluff but I didn't read it fully.
Parents already have a legal responsibility to pay for their kids with or without anti-gambling laws. If they aren't doing that, it does not matter how or why. Thinking like you do just promotes nanny-state-ism and denies freedom and responsibility.
Well, would you say that's an example of christians "compel[ing] others to do what they otherwise would not" or not?
Really? Not even making all kids in public schools pledge allegiance to something under god?
Sounds like you would have been better off just ripping the game off... that's what you get for being a legitimate, paying customer these days.
Can you write software for the S60 or anything similar and easily run it on your phone without anyone else's (like Nokia's) permission? Does the vendor try to get in the way of you doing this? Can you publish the programs you write on your own website and can others run them on their own phones without any permission or help from the vendor? I am interested in a phone on which I can do this and is why the iPhone isn't it.
Brush up on your 3rd grade reading comprehension skills. You don't have to check it every time. You're not paranoid enough to check the SSL cert once, yet you're paranoid to check an obscure page every time? The people who provide DNS can't "fix" it. There is no security built in to it and probably never will be. Its not their job.
A virus in your machine? If the machine you're typing all your passwords and personal information into is under the control of someone else then checking for an obscure page does not improve the safety of that information.
So you - gasp - VERIFY who your SSL connection is with. Make sure you're typing the correct URL - the one your bank writes on your statements, and check the certificate. That's what the lock icon is there for. Bookmark the correct site and use it.
How did this nonsense get modded up to 5? I thought this was a computer geek site.
We've had solutions for this sort of attack for a long, long time now. If you want to access your bank, type httpS://bank every time. Bookmark it if you want. There, now you're safe from DNS spoofing attacks and you don't have to do this silly and insecure "check for an obscure page" garbage either.
Yes you can. The example I just gave will work without source routing.
Um, yes they can:
Attacker's and victim's shared public network: 10.0.0.0/24
attacker's public IP address: 10.0.0.1
victim's public IP address: 10.0.0.2
victim's private NATed IP network: 192.168.0.0/24
attacker-host# route add -net 192.168.0.0/24 gw 10.0.0.2
Attacker can now send packets to any of victim's private hosts, NATed or not, if victim has no filtering.
The problem is, you are not in control of who can route to your NATted networks or not. Anyone on the same network outside your firewall can add a route to your private network via your firewall's address on that network. The only way you can stop their traffic is with filter rules. And using those with private addresses is no different than using those with public addresses.
Hmmm... So hardware that is months old is 'antique' to you... I bet hardware companies really love your stupidity. That bug was first reported 2004-11-02.
The bug was there all along. It was reported even when the card was being sold. Just waiting a few years until the card isn't being sold anymore and then shrugging their shoulders and telling people to buy newer hardware is hardly an acceptable response.
No they aren't. My laptop came with an ipw2100. If in the presence of more than a few APs the card will hang and the driver will restart it, hanging everything for a second or two. This is a bug that has been known about for years and still isn't fixed. I gave up waiting for them a while ago and replaced the piece of crap with an Atheros card. No more hangs.
secure.freedomsbell.org
secure.sunshinepress.org
secure.ljsf.org
all resolve to the same two IP addrs: 87.106.162.82 88.80.13.160
wikileaks.org.uk
cauce.us
both resolve to 88.80.13.160 (same as one above).
No big mystery why all of those might be down.
wikileaks.cx
wikileaks.be
secure.libertypen.org
are responding just fine (minus libertypen) on http (not ssl) with the page of a domain squatter. According to google cache, those have been the pages of squatters/linkfarms since at least Sat Sept 14.
Nothing to see here...
The only reason your AV program flagged it was because somewhere, some computer was already infected with it. By relying on AV you're just relying on luck - being lucky enough to only be exposed to bad things a while after the AV company found them.
Hopefully that comic isn't a sign of things to come. Impossible to bookmark where you are because the URL is always the same because they use some javascript nonsense to change pages... you hit the next link and it sends you to the top of the page BEFORE the next image loads... the browser throbber & status bar don't work.
He isn't the one who made a mistake.
Because it would make internet routing tables too large. Instead of a route for a whole ISP that says "10.0.0.0/20 via interface0" you wind up with "10.0.0.0/24 via interface0; 10.0.0.1/24 via interface1; 10.0.0.2/24 via interface0;" etc...
You don't know what you're talking about. What on earth is this "portal"?? NAT doesn't keep people out of your affairs. Some people, perhaps many people, CAN route to your network. If your ISP created a route for your RFC1918 blocks, everyone connected to that ISP would be able to get into your affairs if you don't have a firewall that drops those packets. Practically all cable ISPs and some DSL providers plop all their customers on one big logical ethernet. Any of those people can, in theory, set up a route for your private network gateway via your public IP address.
The ONLY thing keeping all these people off your network is your firewall. And guess what? That firewall works exactly the same way without NAT.
The issue isn't whether or not someone has the right to keep "rented" bits, the issue is wether or not someone who doesn't own your computer has the right to any control over your computer. The desire of copyright holders to enforce their copyrights and licenses and people's control over their own computers is conflicting. If preserving the later means the death of copyright, as you put it, then I'm all for copyright dying as quickly as possible. And I say this as a copyright holder. I'll take a world without copyright than this world any day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite:
Good point. Before beating them hard enough to cause blood loss we should remove them from the train.
HAHAHAAHA... Oh - clearly you meant you rode with an assault rifle hung over your shoulder. Yeah, that would effectively stave off the thieves as well as the shovers, pick pockets, and loud, disrespectful ghetto trash.
Taliban rule based on my comments? Hmm, I can't seem to find where it is I said I want to execute women for not covering their heads or not believing in particular flavor of Islam. Maybe you could help me out here and paste a link. All I can remember ever wanting is to be left alone, but hey, my memory isn't perfect.
No. They should have been beaten repeatedly and then hanged in front of a bus stop or subway station with the dead bodies left to hang there until they became a health hazard. The entire thing should have been video taped and replays played around the stops also.
Perhaps then public transportation would be safe and clean again and people who use it left alone.