Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in the real world. What actually happens is that the money goes to the institutions rather than the individual. The so-called sandstone or elite type of institutions get the bulk of the money based partly on who they are. I am not saying this is the only criteria, but it is certainly a part of the process. I work in the system, I am a researcher, I apply for grants, I have seen the process in action. Even the people who work at these type of places admit that this occurs.
In one word or less, no. Any speed enhancements you see in Wi-fi will be proprietary ones from manufacturers. "Wi-fi" and "Wi-max" are based on standards developed by the IEEE, so it wouldn't make sense for them to create two standards that do exactly the same thing. The whole point of developing Wi-max is because Wi-Fi just won't scale enough to be used in a broadband environment. Wi-fi was never intended to be used for anything other than local area networks Sure, Wi-fi has been forced into the role through mesh and other ideas, but doing this pretty much stuffs the spectrum up for other Wi-fi users.
I couldn't agrere more, and what about the first part:
Well, people get confused about browsers. You can have as many browsers as you want on your PC, just like you can have tons of music players and things like that.
What the... is that all about? I think the only person who is confused here is old Bill himself.
You could do that, but seeing as creation was only a few thousand years ago, "god" can't have evolved too much;). I spose it depends on what sort of evolutionary pressures "god" was put under? Don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to meet the beastie that eats gods...
Yes, I used to work in plant science, focusing on salt tolerance work in particular. Although I didn't personally use PEG, I know from my readings that it is used in for some aspects of salinity and water relations. It is used for research into how plants deal with water deficit because it can be used to lower osmotic potential without causing toxic effects to cells. Using salts and other ionic compounds does also lower the potential, but it can have bad side effects. PEG allows water potential to be investigated without these side effects. I would be interested to find out the actual mechanism by which it interacts with nerve cells. Buffering does sound a likely effect.
The interference is only partly to do twith the antenna. The main problem is that bluetooth operates at exactly the same frequency as Wi-fi (2.4 GHz). The only thing that defines two signals as being separate is their frequency: if the frequency is the same, then they will interfere. Normally, this is only a medium problem with bluetooth. By putting a bigger antenna on it, you are increasing the *gain* (not power), meaning that the interfering signal is broadcast over a larger area, making it a LARGE problem.
Fantastic. You've just invented a brilliant 802.11b and g jamming device. This thing should prevent the use of WLANs within a fairly significant radius. Although it uses FHSS, it will appear as all band noise to a DSSS system like the 802.11 2.4GHz devices. Why do you think there are already workplaces with "No Bluetooth Allowed"? And thats just for the short range bluetooth devices. Boosting the power on one of those things just aint clever.
What a let down the actual article was!;) I had visions of a small to medium sized vehicle decked out with a boot full of storage arrays and extra processors jammed into the glovebox. The rear-view would be replaced with a small LCD display, and it would have speakers built into the headrest. And man, you should have seen the cup-holders this thing had!
We do already: they call it a conference. Not trying to be a smartass, but a paper presented to a good conference is peer reviewed, then presented to a bunch of people who are experts in the field. It is then discussed both formally and informally.
Really? The reviewing may be done for free, but there are other costs involved: who do you think is going to do the job of organising the papers to be sent out? And editing them when they have been reviewed? Good luck finding people to do that for free... You may get it with a smaller journal that is published infrequently, but not for larger ones.
Yes, but the assignments in our units are always worth less than the exam... and that isn't open book. Unfortunately I have to agree on the "shouldn't be there" part: we do get a few of those.
Re:The teachers should...
on
Cheating Made Easy
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Isn't that part of a professors/teachers responsibility?
No, it isn't actually. As a student it is YOUR responsibility to act responsibly and in accordance with the academic principles of integrity and honsety. Most institutions have such policies in place, therefore it is assumed that you are abiding by this.
You can have it the other way if you like: we will assume that every paper has been plagiarised, and you have to prove to us that it isn't. Ring any bells? How about guilty until proven innocent... That is in effect what your statement amounts to.
Having been a professor for 4 years, it still amazes me to the length that students will go to, and the time they will waste in trying to get out of having to do the work assigned to them!
One case in particular comes to mind afew years back where we set them an on-line tutorial to go through and answer some questions at the end. The questions varied, so this particular group spent DAYS going through the exercise and screen dumping all possible answers to the question, so they could answer any question given as an assignment. If they had just done the task given, it would only have taken them a few hours! I see similar examples all the time of students spending more time trying to "beat" the system, rather than just "extracting the digit" and getting on with it.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Kracker Jack is used to perpetrate a MITM attack, this is how the VPN is circumvented. It goes something like this:
When a client is using a VPN solution, it sends a modified DHCP request with its public key; the VPN gateway inserts the clients public key into the DNS server; the client requests the gateways public key from the DNS server, client receives the key and the tunnel is then established. Kracker-Jack works by firstly initiating a deauthentication attack against a valid client, forcing the client to re-authenticate (specifically to the device running Kracker-Jack). It then requests and receives the clients' public key form the DNS server. The next step is to initiate a DHCP request with the clients MAC address, as the client did initially, but its uses its own key, which replaces the clients. In the next step, Kracker-Jack initiates secure connections with both server and client, and the client gets a new public key via DNS request (from Kracker-Jack). Tunnels are now setup between the client and Kracker-Jack, and Kracker-Jack and the server: all traffic now passes unencrypted through Kracker-Jack.
I agree with you that unless you are rotating your key, either through a centralised key server, or WPA, then wi-fi shouldn't be considered. VPN's however are less secure. Layer 2 vulnerabilities mean that a VPN can be bypassed using tools such as Kracker-Jack. Seen it, done it. Scared some very large organisations IT security managers by showing them...
No offence, but if you think masking an SSID and using MAC filtering is a defence, then you shouldn't be calling yourself a security expert. Masked SSID's can still be sniffed (AirJack), and MAC addresses can be spoofed. Sure maybe not at the same time that you use it, but are you on there permanently connected with that client MAC 24/7? Even if you are, it still won't necessarily protect you. I can use a deauth attack against your client, then spoof your MAC to allow my client to connect to your AP. This is VERY easy to do. If you are not concerned about the fact that anyone can see every bit of traffic on your network, then go for it. If you are concerned about people connecting to your AP and stealing bandwidth, or hacking your box(es)then you are still vulnerable using the methods you have described.
I would really think about at least using shared key for the authentication phase. Sure it potentially exposes your WEP key, but the time required to hack it will keep most people away. This doesn't slow your connection down, but will prevent unauthorised users from connecting to your AP.
We have already just done the same thing with a dozen PIII 866 machines out of a computer lab. We are running a rocks distro on it. This thing has got some grunt! I would seriously recommend having a go at it. A good switch is essential, especially if you are running something like Povray: this generates heaps of network traffic. A switch with a massive backplane is nice to have:) For other apps like John the Ripper, wihc we are currently running, the network isn't a bottleneck.
Don't get me wrong; I am not having a go at these certs. They have their place, I just don't belive that it is at a Uni. It is mainly run by Technical colleges, and that is more appropriate. At the end of the cert, you are qualified to setup / maintain / troubleshoot that particular system. At the end of an undergard or postgrad, you are qualified to do a lot more (theoretically).
I am a lecturer (what you would call a "professor" in the US) at an Australian University and enrolments in computer science at all Campsuses across the country are down here too. Some of the comments people are making here are very interesting, and it puts an interesting spin on things. Most of the faculty were asking the question "What are we doing wrong, and what can we do to get these students back?". When the real question should be "What can we do to improve our courses for the students that we do have now?".
When the drop in enrolments first started to appear, it was shored up by running industry training courses, like MS and CISCO. This is all well and good, but these are training courses, not University subjects: they don't teach students to think and question. I am not having a go at this type of training, but saying that running it at a university level is inappropriate.
I totally agree with the comments about the reduction being those who were only in it for the money. One of the units I teach contains, wait for it... actual science! This scares the crap out of some stuednts and they even ask "Why do we have to do this? When do we get to play with the toys?". They have no interest in learning how it works, they just want to be trained in how to do it. As an educator, it makes you fairly disheartened. Fortunately, there are still those students who are keen to learn and show an interest and ask questions, and with numbers reducing, these should be on the increase.
The one good thing about numbers dropping off is that, as people have commented here, the ones we get in now should be more interested in learning, and we can get rid of the trend towards running training, and get back to educating people to be thinkers.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in the real world. What actually happens is that the money goes to the institutions rather than the individual. The so-called sandstone or elite type of institutions get the bulk of the money based partly on who they are. I am not saying this is the only criteria, but it is certainly a part of the process. I work in the system, I am a researcher, I apply for grants, I have seen the process in action. Even the people who work at these type of places admit that this occurs.
In one word or less, no. Any speed enhancements you see in Wi-fi will be proprietary ones from manufacturers. "Wi-fi" and "Wi-max" are based on standards developed by the IEEE, so it wouldn't make sense for them to create two standards that do exactly the same thing. The whole point of developing Wi-max is because Wi-Fi just won't scale enough to be used in a broadband environment. Wi-fi was never intended to be used for anything other than local area networks Sure, Wi-fi has been forced into the role through mesh and other ideas, but doing this pretty much stuffs the spectrum up for other Wi-fi users.
Well, people get confused about browsers. You can have as many browsers as you want on your PC, just like you can have tons of music players and things like that.
What the ... is that all about? I think the only person who is confused here is old Bill himself.
You could do that, but seeing as creation was only a few thousand years ago, "god" can't have evolved too much ;). I spose it depends on what sort of evolutionary pressures "god" was put under? Don't know about you, but I wouldn't like to meet the beastie that eats gods...
Yes, I used to work in plant science, focusing on salt tolerance work in particular. Although I didn't personally use PEG, I know from my readings that it is used in for some aspects of salinity and water relations. It is used for research into how plants deal with water deficit because it can be used to lower osmotic potential without causing toxic effects to cells. Using salts and other ionic compounds does also lower the potential, but it can have bad side effects. PEG allows water potential to be investigated without these side effects. I would be interested to find out the actual mechanism by which it interacts with nerve cells. Buffering does sound a likely effect.
The interference is only partly to do twith the antenna. The main problem is that bluetooth operates at exactly the same frequency as Wi-fi (2.4 GHz). The only thing that defines two signals as being separate is their frequency: if the frequency is the same, then they will interfere. Normally, this is only a medium problem with bluetooth. By putting a bigger antenna on it, you are increasing the *gain* (not power), meaning that the interfering signal is broadcast over a larger area, making it a LARGE problem.
Fantastic. You've just invented a brilliant 802.11b and g jamming device. This thing should prevent the use of WLANs within a fairly significant radius. Although it uses FHSS, it will appear as all band noise to a DSSS system like the 802.11 2.4GHz devices. Why do you think there are already workplaces with "No Bluetooth Allowed"? And thats just for the short range bluetooth devices. Boosting the power on one of those things just aint clever.
What a let down the actual article was! ;)
I had visions of a small to medium sized vehicle decked out with a boot full of storage arrays and extra processors jammed into the glovebox. The rear-view would be replaced with a small LCD display, and it would have speakers built into the headrest. And man, you should have seen the cup-holders this thing had!
We do already: they call it a conference. Not trying to be a smartass, but a paper presented to a good conference is peer reviewed, then presented to a bunch of people who are experts in the field. It is then discussed both formally and informally.
Phew! So it wasn't just me! Got to admit though, I was worried about my porn collection there for a minute! ;)
Really? The reviewing may be done for free, but there are other costs involved: who do you think is going to do the job of organising the papers to be sent out? And editing them when they have been reviewed? Good luck finding people to do that for free... You may get it with a smaller journal that is published infrequently, but not for larger ones.
Yes, but the assignments in our units are always worth less than the exam... and that isn't open book. Unfortunately I have to agree on the "shouldn't be there" part: we do get a few of those.
Isn't that part of a professors/teachers responsibility?
No, it isn't actually. As a student it is YOUR responsibility to act responsibly and in accordance with the academic principles of integrity and honsety. Most institutions have such policies in place, therefore it is assumed that you are abiding by this.You can have it the other way if you like: we will assume that every paper has been plagiarised, and you have to prove to us that it isn't. Ring any bells? How about guilty until proven innocent... That is in effect what your statement amounts to.
One case in particular comes to mind afew years back where we set them an on-line tutorial to go through and answer some questions at the end. The questions varied, so this particular group spent DAYS going through the exercise and screen dumping all possible answers to the question, so they could answer any question given as an assignment. If they had just done the task given, it would only have taken them a few hours! I see similar examples all the time of students spending more time trying to "beat" the system, rather than just "extracting the digit" and getting on with it.
When a client is using a VPN solution, it sends a modified DHCP request with its public key; the VPN gateway inserts the clients public key into the DNS server; the client requests the gateways public key from the DNS server, client receives the key and the tunnel is then established. Kracker-Jack works by firstly initiating a deauthentication attack against a valid client, forcing the client to re-authenticate (specifically to the device running Kracker-Jack). It then requests and receives the clients' public key form the DNS server. The next step is to initiate a DHCP request with the clients MAC address, as the client did initially, but its uses its own key, which replaces the clients. In the next step, Kracker-Jack initiates secure connections with both server and client, and the client gets a new public key via DNS request (from Kracker-Jack). Tunnels are now setup between the client and Kracker-Jack, and Kracker-Jack and the server: all traffic now passes unencrypted through Kracker-Jack.
I agree with you that unless you are rotating your key, either through a centralised key server, or WPA, then wi-fi shouldn't be considered. VPN's however are less secure. Layer 2 vulnerabilities mean that a VPN can be bypassed using tools such as Kracker-Jack. Seen it, done it. Scared some very large organisations IT security managers by showing them...
No offence, but if you think masking an SSID and using MAC filtering is a defence, then you shouldn't be calling yourself a security expert. Masked SSID's can still be sniffed (AirJack), and MAC addresses can be spoofed. Sure maybe not at the same time that you use it, but are you on there permanently connected with that client MAC 24/7? Even if you are, it still won't necessarily protect you. I can use a deauth attack against your client, then spoof your MAC to allow my client to connect to your AP. This is VERY easy to do. If you are not concerned about the fact that anyone can see every bit of traffic on your network, then go for it. If you are concerned about people connecting to your AP and stealing bandwidth, or hacking your box(es)then you are still vulnerable using the methods you have described.
I would really think about at least using shared key for the authentication phase. Sure it potentially exposes your WEP key, but the time required to hack it will keep most people away. This doesn't slow your connection down, but will prevent unauthorised users from connecting to your AP.
Hah! Thats nothing, I had it three days before they started to write it... ;)
We have already just done the same thing with a dozen PIII 866 machines out of a computer lab. We are running a rocks distro on it. This thing has got some grunt! I would seriously recommend having a go at it. A good switch is essential, especially if you are running something like Povray: this generates heaps of network traffic. A switch with a massive backplane is nice to have :) For other apps like John the Ripper, wihc we are currently running, the network isn't a bottleneck.
Don't get me wrong; I am not having a go at these certs. They have their place, I just don't belive that it is at a Uni. It is mainly run by Technical colleges, and that is more appropriate. At the end of the cert, you are qualified to setup / maintain / troubleshoot that particular system. At the end of an undergard or postgrad, you are qualified to do a lot more (theoretically).
When the drop in enrolments first started to appear, it was shored up by running industry training courses, like MS and CISCO. This is all well and good, but these are training courses, not University subjects: they don't teach students to think and question. I am not having a go at this type of training, but saying that running it at a university level is inappropriate.
I totally agree with the comments about the reduction being those who were only in it for the money. One of the units I teach contains, wait for it... actual science! This scares the crap out of some stuednts and they even ask "Why do we have to do this? When do we get to play with the toys?". They have no interest in learning how it works, they just want to be trained in how to do it. As an educator, it makes you fairly disheartened. Fortunately, there are still those students who are keen to learn and show an interest and ask questions, and with numbers reducing, these should be on the increase.
The one good thing about numbers dropping off is that, as people have commented here, the ones we get in now should be more interested in learning, and we can get rid of the trend towards running training, and get back to educating people to be thinkers.