copying DVDs was possible before DeCSS. the cracking of CSS was to provide for machines other than "licensed" ones to play DVDs. (i.e. to get dvd playback on Linux machines....hence, interoperability.
yes, althought IANAL, I think Yahoo could possibly pull some DMCA stunt to go after folks.
"Rather than monitoring firewalls/antivirus software on remote machines, simply firewall all but essential connections."
unfortunately, in the case of blaster, some oranizations (not mine, thankfully) counted RPC as an 'essential' service, in which case blaster infected an otherwise quarantined network off while the admins were patching.
VPNs are great until you realize that they provide only *temporary* access to your office network. What happens to those road warrior's machines when they're not vpn'd but still on the internet ?
are they firewalled properly ? are their virus definitions updated ?
if no or "don't know" to either of those, then having a VPN will compromise any amount of safety it could bring. in other words, it's possible that the lastest and greatest worm that wasn't able to penetrate your office network until you patch is now vulnerable due to the work-at-home employee who VPNs in, and is now infecting everyone.
a bottom line is to have a well thought out security policy and PROCESS....and that only comes with training, more training, and training. Some education would help, too. Even people like Mudge and Dan Greer don't stop learning.
and for those who would call your questions stupid...they are the folks who are afraid to ask the stupid questions.
1. temporarily wrap and firewall telnet services from your known and good IP. 2. login with telnet, upgrade ssh 3. test sshd and ssh 4. stop telnet from xinetd/inetd
if you're controlling a router upstream from the target, the victim had bigger problems than just an ssh exploit.
I agree...spoofing is quite often mentioned and not so well understood (generally speaking) in the community with respect to tcp wrapping. tcp wrapping is always a good idea, and never a bad one, IMHO.
What's you're point here ? I did read that before I posted. what are you trying to argue ? that she "wants" to believe in them, but *doesn't*, yet, until she sees a body ?
Because Goodall doesn't believe in it, but wants to, doesn't mean other scientists don't, won't or want them too. But what do I care ? I only defend their right to believe in it, for whatever reasons they want, because they know more about it than I do. (and you, too.) No big deal there, never was.
Take a look back at my posts, Population.
Claiming real scientists do believe it isn't opinion, it's fact. It has nothing to do with me, unless you mean me reading that Jane Goddall does believe it's possible, on the web.
YOU assumed I believed in bigfoot. Sad, actually, seeing how you somehow insist that I *do*, yet told you TWICE that I don't. Reading is fundamental.
I didn't claim enough money has been spent, either. Again, that's you. What I said (got a pen this time, so you can write it down ?) is that cryptozoologists outside of lochness/bigfoot get more funding to look for new species, because the issue hasn't been tarnished by hoaxes. Nothing more. Go back and read. It's been funny to watch you argue with facts about me that you're making up in your head.
And as to theory with holes...since you apparently are coming up with these "holes" by sheer deduction, without having any experience in the subject, and trying to argue the "holes" with someone who ALSO has no experience, good luck with that. Please take your genius to the next bigfoot conference.
"Yes, in the way that people "believe" the sun to exist."
I can see the sun. Can you see quarks ? With any amount of equipment ? No.
The comment about reproducability and faith has to do with the certainty with which something will continue to be proven through reproducability. Meaning, you believe in a certain outcome, because it has had that certain outcome in the past, and for no other reason.
I get it: you don't believe that bigfoot exists.
"You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot fans" ---take a look at the symposium attendees (and people who meant to attend, but couldn't), Einstein. They're not 'weekend' or amateur scientists.
Both my undergraduate and graduate degrees were in Mechanical Engineering, Population...I don't need a lesson in experimentation methods. Thanks, tho.
"I have been pointing out the holes in their theories and methodology."
what theories ? what methodology have you been poking holes in ? all I see is you arguing with me, insisting that bigfoot doesn't exist. you don't have to convince me: I don't believe it does. Take a hint from the poster called "0111 1110" above...at least he's making some arguments based on fact, and not trying to teach Science 101.
There are no 'logical fallacies', here, in my argument, since I'm not relying on the testimony of other people.
not sure you read my above post.
but hey, this is fun. note that I don't fall into your 'logical fallacy' circumstance because I'm not relying on supposed bigfoot researchers' testimony that bigfoot is real. Because I'm not arguing that big foot *is* real. just that looking for him is not folly.
We detect what we _think_ are the _indications_ of certain sub-atomic particles. We have not detected their existence. But we still believe them to exist.
I think you might be confused about what I'm saying.
I'm not "off talking about "God", I'm responding to YOUR comment on the scientific method, which is flawed. I.E. you started the 'scientific method' thread, here. Take a hint and read some Fritjof Capra, Wade Rowland, John Polkinghorne, or even Richard Feynman. It is faith that you rely on when you believe in reproducability. You believe the sun comes up every day because it's been like that in the past, not because you've measured its speed and distance that morning. Welcome to any basic logic class.
Again, so you're not still confused, I don't have ANY theories on Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster, only reporting the theories that other people have. I don't believe in either of them, but I do know that....
"The only way to validate a theory is by testing and having those test reproduced and peer-reviewed."...is EXACTLY what those cryptozoologists are out to do.
one form of 'mental masturbation' is trying to argue about your belief with logic when in certain cases, it's just plain unnecessary to do so.
I've been arguing with you NOT because you don't believe in bigfoot, and NOT because I want you to believe in it, or that I DO beleive in it.
I've been arguing with you, because you've been defending yourself with some interesting logic. You can say you don't believe in bigfoot, and leave it at that. No need to try to (terribly) back it up with logic, Population.:)
You, personally, have no proof that he exists. Welcome to the club, neither do I. That doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't look for that proof, or that finding that proof is impossible, or that looking for the proof is foolish. The past successes of cryptozoology have shown that it can pay off. Its success/failure rate, however, is admittedly not great.:)
mis-typed. the theory that Gigantopithecus came from Asia to North America is the main theory that bigfoot-ers discuss. From what I have read, many other species made it over here during the same time period.
let's be clear, shall we ? 1 - I never said I believed in bigfoot. That's your assumption. Neither about the loch ness monster.
2 - yes, ironically, it's exactly 'faith' is what sub-atomics is based on, at its lowermost level.
3 - 'science' in the 1600s brought us to think that Newton's Laws were the de-facto, universal models on which mechanistic principles rely on. We now believe MUCH differently, when it comes to, well, things like nuclear power. The fact of the matter is neither you or I know if there's a new species of animal somewhere in Northen Canada or Sri Lanka, for that matter.
what I have been arguing is that logically following, hoaxes don't make a theory invalid, and faith has plenty of place in the scientific method. I'm not talking about "GOD", I'm talking about belief in something you cannot measure, or detect. That's all.
-Acionyx rex, a giant cheetah, in 1873 -Tratratratra, a giant lemur, in the 1800s -Chacoan peccary -Vu Quang ox, an ox with antelope antlers, 1993 -Colossal squid, Antarctica, 2003...the list can go on.
and you find more to add to the list, on google. Almost all of the new species found in the past 100 years have started with anecdotal evidence, not just found by mistake.
Because there has been hoaxes in the past does not mean that any anecdotal evidence is a fake. Like I've said elsewhere, the discovery of "cold fusion" was made before, too, and turned out to be a hoax. Doesn't mean the search for it is folly.
The fact is, that the giant ape 'Gigantopithecus blacki', which once flourished in Asia, made its way to North America, and this is the main theory that primate anthropologists have been going on. During the same time period, Homo Sapiens crossed the land bridge, as did hundreds of other animals that were not native to North America at the time.
People aren't at the symposium to swap fishing stories where they saw a monster. They are there to discuss, refute, and justify theories that support further investigation. The vast majority of those theories have basis in anthropological fact, not just soccer-mom backyard sightings.
it's true that Bigfoot fans don't restrict themselves to evidence, but scientists do. Tom Swift's budget for his "search" is a drop in the bucket when compared to REAL (even NSF-based) grantee's budgets over years, for say, looking for new species in the Antarctic.
New species are found quite often, and many of those species start with anecdotal evidence, not skeletal remains happened upon by accident.
some cryptozoological successes:
-Acionyx rex, a giant cheetah, in 1873 -Tratratratra, a giant lemur, in the 1800s -Chacoan peccary -Vu Quang ox, an ox with antelope antlers, 1993...the list can go on.
Just google 'cryptozoology' and 'new species' and you'll see the same. The people researching new species are scientists, indeed, but like I said before, the ones who involve themselves in pursuits that have had hoaxes in the media run the risk of losing credibility. But that has nothing to do with whether the animal exists or not.
The theory that scientists propose strongly support the idea of a native North American ape is the real and accepted evidence of the giant ape 'Gigantopithecus blacki', which once flourished in Asia, made its way to North America, and this is the main theory that the scientists, yes, _real_ scientists, have been going on.
In the same time period, Homo Sapiens crossed the land bridge from Asia, as did thousands of other species. Many primate anthropologists agree that is very possible that the Gigantopithecus made it to North America, and some say that it's almost unlikely that they *didn't* make it here.
p.s. this is a digression, but:
about the scientific method having basis in faith, I suggest you read something excellent on the subject, "Galileo's Mistake"...the gist is that the scientific method assumes that once a hypothesis is reproducible, by other scientists, many times, is that it is "enough" to prove that the hypothesis will be true forever (i.e. become "law"). That requires, by definition, faith, and further underscores that science provides, however more or less accurate, a model, and only a model, of reality. Most subatomic physicists and cosmologists will also agree that faith plays quite a large role in their respective fields.
"but the proof that is presented is often full of holes and logicall fallacies."
which is exactly why Cryptozoologists try to stay away from pursuits that have been peppered with hoaxes...because no one will fund them. There is a reason why Loch Ness hasn't undergone a high resolution sonar scan, and it's not because it can't be done.
all that was proved was that a guy made a hoax video and some footprints. his is not the only claim.
people have also faked discoveries of cold fusion, too, but yet they keep trying. maybe someone (you, maybe) should tell them that once someone tried to fake something, then that makes it impossible.
people have also faked discoveries of cold fusion, but for some reason, they keep trying. hmmm. I wonder why ?! I mean, someone tried faking that already....doesn't that mean that it's not possible ?
there are MANY species of animals, who have been discovered, by cryptozoologists, just in the past 100 years, and their existence was suspected many years before the evidence was 'captured' or skeletal remains were found. Let me know if you'd like for me to cite examples.
as to your questions about "why none have been captured" is basically a question of funding. There's a reason why no one has done a full, high-resolution sonar scan of LochNess, too. it's because for an issue so wrought with hoaxes, no one in their right mind would fund such an expensive venture.
"nor are there any skeletons of such. Despite all of the searching for such."
yeah ? by who ? WHO has done all this searching ? the people at this conference, whose budgets are made in their spare time because their universities won't fund the searches ? the fact is, NO major search for evidence has EVER taken place, because of opinions like yours.
"Having a theory about why something could have happened is worthless."
I'm sure that Historians, Anthropologists, and Paleontologists would love to hear your theories on that, as would the governments and universities who put money into all of those pursuits.
Slashdot Mirror
copying DVDs was possible before DeCSS. the cracking of CSS was to provide for machines other than "licensed" ones to play DVDs. (i.e. to get dvd playback on Linux machines....hence, interoperability.
yes, althought IANAL, I think Yahoo could possibly pull some DMCA stunt to go after folks.
"Rather than monitoring firewalls/antivirus software on remote machines, simply firewall all but essential connections."
unfortunately, in the case of blaster, some oranizations (not mine, thankfully) counted RPC as an 'essential' service, in which case blaster infected an otherwise quarantined network off while the admins were patching.
VPNs are great until you realize that they provide only *temporary* access to your office network. What happens to those road warrior's machines when they're not vpn'd but still on the internet ?
are they firewalled properly ?
are their virus definitions updated ?
if no or "don't know" to either of those, then having a VPN will compromise any amount of safety it could bring. in other words, it's possible that the lastest and greatest worm that wasn't able to penetrate your office network until you patch is now vulnerable due to the work-at-home employee who VPNs in, and is now infecting everyone.
a bottom line is to have a well thought out security policy and PROCESS....and that only comes with training, more training, and training. Some education would help, too. Even people like Mudge and Dan Greer don't stop learning.
and for those who would call your questions stupid...they are the folks who are afraid to ask the stupid questions.
Because there are some things you can't find in rural areas. (no surprise there)
People live in certain geographies for certain reasons, and cost, land, and salaries are only part of it.
1. temporarily wrap and firewall telnet services from your known and good IP.
2. login with telnet, upgrade ssh
3. test sshd and ssh
4. stop telnet from xinetd/inetd
if you're controlling a router upstream from the target, the victim had bigger problems than just an ssh exploit.
I agree...spoofing is quite often mentioned and not so well understood (generally speaking) in the community with respect to tcp wrapping. tcp wrapping is always a good idea, and never a bad one, IMHO.
What's you're point here ? I did read that before I posted. what are you trying to argue ? that she "wants" to believe in them, but *doesn't*, yet, until she sees a body ?
Because Goodall doesn't believe in it, but wants to, doesn't mean other scientists don't, won't or want them too. But what do I care ? I only defend their right to believe in it, for whatever reasons they want, because they know more about it than I do. (and you, too.) No big deal there, never was.
Take a look back at my posts, Population. Claiming real scientists do believe it isn't opinion, it's fact. It has nothing to do with me, unless you mean me reading that Jane Goddall does believe it's possible, on the web. YOU assumed I believed in bigfoot. Sad, actually, seeing how you somehow insist that I *do*, yet told you TWICE that I don't. Reading is fundamental. I didn't claim enough money has been spent, either. Again, that's you. What I said (got a pen this time, so you can write it down ?) is that cryptozoologists outside of lochness/bigfoot get more funding to look for new species, because the issue hasn't been tarnished by hoaxes. Nothing more. Go back and read. It's been funny to watch you argue with facts about me that you're making up in your head. And as to theory with holes...since you apparently are coming up with these "holes" by sheer deduction, without having any experience in the subject, and trying to argue the "holes" with someone who ALSO has no experience, good luck with that. Please take your genius to the next bigfoot conference.
"But you said that there aren't holes in it"
never did say that.
One more time, just for the cameras: I DO NOT BELIEVE IN BIGFOOT. I NEVER SAID I DID.
the ape/strait theory is not mine.
what I *do* believe, is that you like seeing your own opinion printed on the web, and that you have quite a bit of trouble reading or understanding.
"Yes, in the way that people "believe" the sun to exist."
I can see the sun. Can you see quarks ? With any amount of equipment ? No.
The comment about reproducability and faith has to do with the certainty with which something will continue to be proven through reproducability. Meaning, you believe in a certain outcome, because it has had that certain outcome in the past, and for no other reason.
I get it: you don't believe that bigfoot exists.
"You are confusing the cryptozoologists with the bigfoot fans" ---take a look at the symposium attendees (and people who meant to attend, but couldn't), Einstein. They're not 'weekend' or amateur scientists.
Both my undergraduate and graduate degrees were in Mechanical Engineering, Population...I don't need a lesson in experimentation methods. Thanks, tho.
"I have been pointing out the holes in their theories and methodology."
what theories ? what methodology have you been poking holes in ? all I see is you arguing with me, insisting that bigfoot doesn't exist. you don't have to convince me: I don't believe it does. Take a hint from the poster called "0111 1110" above...at least he's making some arguments based on fact, and not trying to teach Science 101.
There are no 'logical fallacies', here, in my argument, since I'm not relying on the testimony of other people.
Thanks for all the fun.
not sure you read my above post. but hey, this is fun. note that I don't fall into your 'logical fallacy' circumstance because I'm not relying on supposed bigfoot researchers' testimony that bigfoot is real. Because I'm not arguing that big foot *is* real. just that looking for him is not folly.
you obviously haven't read "Galileo's Mistake". have you ?
you, sir, are the only one on this board with any knowledge to comment on the topic, which is the point I have been trying to get across.
Experience and knowledge such as yours is much better than the 'there was a hoax about so therefore it doesn't exist' logic.
Thank you for posting.
We detect what we _think_ are the _indications_ of certain sub-atomic particles. We have not detected their existence. But we still believe them to exist.
...is EXACTLY what those cryptozoologists are out to do.
:)
:)
:)
I think you might be confused about what I'm saying.
I'm not "off talking about "God", I'm responding to YOUR comment on the scientific method, which is flawed. I.E. you started the 'scientific method' thread, here. Take a hint and read some Fritjof Capra, Wade Rowland, John Polkinghorne, or even Richard Feynman. It is faith that you rely on when you believe in reproducability. You believe the sun comes up every day because it's been like that in the past, not because you've measured its speed and distance that morning. Welcome to any basic logic class.
Again, so you're not still confused, I don't have ANY theories on Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness monster, only reporting the theories that other people have. I don't believe in either of them, but I do know that....
"The only way to validate a theory is by testing and having those test reproduced and peer-reviewed."
one form of 'mental masturbation' is trying to argue about your belief with logic when in certain cases, it's just plain unnecessary to do so.
I've been arguing with you NOT because you don't believe in bigfoot, and NOT because I want you to believe in it, or that I DO beleive in it.
I've been arguing with you, because you've been defending yourself with some interesting logic. You can say you don't believe in bigfoot, and leave it at that. No need to try to (terribly) back it up with logic, Population.
You, personally, have no proof that he exists. Welcome to the club, neither do I. That doesn't mean other people can't or shouldn't look for that proof, or that finding that proof is impossible, or that looking for the proof is foolish. The past successes of cryptozoology have shown that it can pay off. Its success/failure rate, however, is admittedly not great.
Have you had fun with this ? I certainly have.
mis-typed. the theory that Gigantopithecus came from Asia to North America is the main theory that bigfoot-ers discuss. From what I have read, many other species made it over here during the same time period.
read my above post about faith.
let's be clear, shall we ?
1 - I never said I believed in bigfoot. That's your assumption. Neither about the loch ness monster.
2 - yes, ironically, it's exactly 'faith' is what sub-atomics is based on, at its lowermost level.
3 - 'science' in the 1600s brought us to think that Newton's Laws were the de-facto, universal models on which mechanistic principles rely on. We now believe MUCH differently, when it comes to, well, things like nuclear power. The fact of the matter is neither you or I know if there's a new species of animal somewhere in Northen Canada or Sri Lanka, for that matter.
what I have been arguing is that logically following, hoaxes don't make a theory invalid, and faith has plenty of place in the scientific method. I'm not talking about "GOD", I'm talking about belief in something you cannot measure, or detect. That's all.
some cryptozoological successes:
...the list can go on.
-Acionyx rex, a giant cheetah, in 1873
-Tratratratra, a giant lemur, in the 1800s
-Chacoan peccary
-Vu Quang ox, an ox with antelope antlers, 1993
-Colossal squid, Antarctica, 2003
and you find more to add to the list, on google.
Almost all of the new species found in the past 100 years have started with anecdotal evidence, not just found by mistake.
Because there has been hoaxes in the past does not mean that any anecdotal evidence is a fake. Like I've said elsewhere, the discovery of "cold fusion" was made before, too, and turned out to be a hoax. Doesn't mean the search for it is folly.
The fact is, that the giant ape 'Gigantopithecus blacki', which once flourished in Asia, made its way to North America, and this is the main theory that primate anthropologists have been going on. During the same time period, Homo Sapiens crossed the land bridge, as did hundreds of other animals that were not native to North America at the time.
People aren't at the symposium to swap fishing stories where they saw a monster. They are there to discuss, refute, and justify theories that support further investigation. The vast majority of those theories have basis in anthropological fact, not just soccer-mom backyard sightings.
it's true that Bigfoot fans don't restrict themselves to evidence, but scientists do. Tom Swift's budget for his "search" is a drop in the bucket when compared to REAL (even NSF-based) grantee's budgets over years, for say, looking for new species in the Antarctic.
...the list can go on.
New species are found quite often, and many of those species start with anecdotal evidence, not skeletal remains happened upon by accident.
some cryptozoological successes:
-Acionyx rex, a giant cheetah, in 1873
-Tratratratra, a giant lemur, in the 1800s
-Chacoan peccary
-Vu Quang ox, an ox with antelope antlers, 1993
Just google 'cryptozoology' and 'new species' and you'll see the same. The people researching new species are scientists, indeed, but like I said before, the ones who involve themselves in pursuits that have had hoaxes in the media run the risk of losing credibility. But that has nothing to do with whether the animal exists or not.
The theory that scientists propose strongly support the idea of a native North American ape is the real and accepted evidence of the giant ape 'Gigantopithecus blacki', which once flourished in Asia, made its way to North America, and this is the main theory that the scientists, yes, _real_ scientists, have been going on.
In the same time period, Homo Sapiens crossed the land bridge from Asia, as did thousands of other species. Many primate anthropologists agree that is very possible that the Gigantopithecus made it to North America, and some say that it's almost unlikely that they *didn't* make it here.
p.s.
this is a digression, but:
about the scientific method having basis in faith, I suggest you read something excellent on the subject, "Galileo's Mistake"...the gist is that the scientific method assumes that once a hypothesis is reproducible, by other scientists, many times, is that it is "enough" to prove that the hypothesis will be true forever (i.e. become "law"). That requires, by definition, faith, and further underscores that science provides, however more or less accurate, a model, and only a model, of reality. Most subatomic physicists and cosmologists will also agree that faith plays quite a large role in their respective fields.
"but the proof that is presented is often full of holes and logicall fallacies."
which is exactly why Cryptozoologists try to stay away from pursuits that have been peppered with hoaxes...because no one will fund them. There is a reason why Loch Ness hasn't undergone a high resolution sonar scan, and it's not because it can't be done.
and as to the "scientific method", its success is dependent on something called 'faith'.
all that was proved was that a guy made a hoax video and some footprints. his is not the only claim.
people have also faked discoveries of cold fusion, too, but yet they keep trying. maybe someone (you, maybe) should tell them that once someone tried to fake something, then that makes it impossible.
just a minor point here...the people at the 'bigfoot' symposium are not there to declare that they have proof of anything.
people have also faked discoveries of cold fusion, but for some reason, they keep trying. hmmm. I wonder why ?! I mean, someone tried faking that already....doesn't that mean that it's not possible ?
some thoughts:
there are MANY species of animals, who have been discovered, by cryptozoologists, just in the past 100 years, and their existence was suspected many years before the evidence was 'captured' or skeletal remains were found. Let me know if you'd like for me to cite examples.
as to your questions about "why none have been captured" is basically a question of funding. There's a reason why no one has done a full, high-resolution sonar scan of LochNess, too. it's because for an issue so wrought with hoaxes, no one in their right mind would fund such an expensive venture.
"nor are there any skeletons of such. Despite all of the searching for such."
yeah ? by who ? WHO has done all this searching ?
the people at this conference, whose budgets are made in their spare time because their universities won't fund the searches ? the fact is, NO major search for evidence has EVER taken place, because of opinions like yours.
"Having a theory about why something could have happened is worthless."
I'm sure that Historians, Anthropologists, and Paleontologists would love to hear your theories on that, as would the governments and universities who put money into all of those pursuits.