Allowing the underlying application protocols to implement security is a good idea.
We've deployed a wireless application over CDPD. While we can pretty much assume the traffic between modem and CDPD carrier is encrypted and authenticated using the built in capabilities, we can't say the same about the connection from the carrier to our customer's site and their WAN.
As such, we employ an embedded VPN solution at each client and terminating site. Traffic is encrypted from the moment it leaves the mobile unit until it reaches its final destination. Unencrypted trafffic is not visible except on the terminating LAN (if the VPN is running on a machine seperate from the server).
Alternative Lightning Collection techniques
on
Lightning Research
·
· Score: 2
Shooting rockets with trail wires is one way to get a bolt to strike the same location twice. Another technique that I read about some six months ago was to use a laser.
A high powered laser would be shot towards an approaching thunderhead. The laser would also superheat the air in its path producing a conductive plasma. The electrical discharge from the cloud would then travel down this path where it would meet up with a lighting rod. There was talk about using this technique to take the punch out of potentially severe thunderstorms.
The technique of using Estes rockets certainly is probably a lot cheaper than a high powered laser...but you'd get a lot more shots with the laser.
No..I turned turn them around (I'm not that stupid).
By default, the tx and rcv crystals are tuned to two slightly different frequencies ( I think by 4.5khz, if I recall properly...it's been a long time).
I swapped the transmit and receive crystals. By the way the circuits were designed, this pushed the transmitter and receiver off frequency. It did require a slight recalibration of the receiver's tuned circuits to have it see the new frequency (the tx side was pretty much fixed). Having an O-scope and freq meter came in handy to make sure thinks were tuned right.
The PLL model was a little easier because the it just meant selecting the proper input values (which were printed on the schematic). Back then, the schematics were truly open source.
1977 - Reversed the channel 14 crystals in my 1.5 watt CB hand-held. The new, clear channel was then known as "Crazy Charlie". Despite being the height of a solar flare cycle, I was still amazed when discovered I was chatting with an individual in Jamaica while I was outside Philadelphia, PA.
1977 was a good year for DXing. Routinely spoke with folks well outside the normally extremely limited range of 1-2 miles with this handheld.
Of course there's life in that system! But, don't expect to hear from them anytime soon.
How do I know? Well...during my last alien abduction, they told me so (The captain even has a pet shnitzoid named Spazmork). While passing through our solar system, their systems were knocked offline when they encountered an intense wall of RF energy packets originating from atop a coffee shop in NYC. They called it the/. effect. Took them several days to restart their systems while they muttered something about a something called a "cmdr taco" and intergalactic war.
They are now posting warnings and to other civilizations warning of the danger of passing through the Sol system.
Interesting. Of concern to me would be accountability for those using your network. If some joker decides to download kiddie porn or engage in some other illegal action, the IP law enforcement will see is yours and not that of the law breaker. You'd have a tough time explaining that you weren't the one engaging in the activity.
Now, perhaps if there was some kind of free registry service that tracked users by the MAC.
At the time of the purchase of a wireless card, they would be entered into the registry and a digital certificate issued binding their name, address, public key and MAC address. When the user entered a free zone, they would exchange their credentials and you'd be able to provide the feds with the necessary tracking information.
Of course, this takes the fun out of the project as you'd have a lot of record keeping to do. Just how much...I dunno.
Anybody think such a service could work? If not, why? What would you do to improve upon it?
I couldn't agree with you more. When I was a young teen, I lived in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Because I had such and interest in astronomy, they allowed me purchase my first telescope, a 4 1/4 inch reflector from Edmund Scientific. I could go out into my back yard on almost any given night and have a clear sky (weather permitting, of course) and see most of the stellar sights. It was amazing and awe inspiring. We'd go to farmlands of Lancaster and it was just like you could fall off the Earth.
Today, I live even further in the "country" and can see almost nothing. Yes, there are a few nights when I can see the stars, those are the nights of power failures. It's very sad. As real-estate developers continue to build larger, more luxurious homes with overzealous lighting in already heavily populated areas or buy out the precious open space, the situation just keeps getting worse.
In the 60's and 70's, the sky was still pretty amazing. No wonder we wanted to go into space. Now, we look up and it's not quite so awe inspiring...sorta like a polluted beach or something. "Who wants to go there???" we ask.
People wonder what the big fuss is all about. But, as the previous poster stated, it truly is a humbling experience to look up and see the heavens as our forefathers did hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago.
In some respects, the Californian's are lucky. With the rolling blackouts, maybe they'll get a glimpse to see what we are all missing.
Like driving, telephone service is a priviledge and not a right. I have never read in the Constitution or its ammendments (ala the Bill of Rights) that I have the right to telephone service. If it isn't there, it is not a right but a priveledge.
We, the citizens of this country, seem to think that somethings as common as telephone service or driving are rights. They are not. Simply because something is regulated or provided for by law does not imply it is a right. If you know what provision of the Consitition guarantees basic or data grade phone service, I'd be much interested in hearing about it.
The United States is *NOT* a communist or socialist society. What you construde as a right may be in those societies. Not here. We may have our liberal factions, but we are capitalist society driven by those rules. Yes, the gov't can establish regulations to provide minimal services such as publicly accessible phone. I don't think data grade service is one of them. Unless you are making an emergency call, you still have to put money in them or you get cut off. No?
If you don't pay your bill, they CAN and WILL cut you off. Same thing goes for cell phone use. The exception is 911 or emergency calls. All public pay phones and cell phones will permit a 911 call at no cost (hence you should keep your cell phone even if you no longer have service).
When I have moved and needed to set up phone service to my new domicile, the phone line at my old residence loses its dialtone. I can not make a phone call when the line has been disconnected DESPITE the fact that there is a phone line running into the old residence. This is because I have not paid for service in both locations.
The service they must provide to you is, naturally, no-discriminatory as you pointed out. But, the rate at which you pay for your calls is based upon a legally binding contract. Go over your allocated minutes or call into a long distance area, and different charges apply. Am I not correct? Regulated or not, they are in the business to make money.
Gas, electric and water companies can also cut off service. But, they may not do so when such action endangers life (that *IS* in the consitituion...You have the right to *life*, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). That is why they won't cut off service in the dead of winter or to a nursing home during a heat wave. When the endangering condition no longer exists, they can and will cut off your service. And, they will temporarily restore it if the dangerous condition resumes.
Your assumption is correct only if the plain text is greater in length than the repetition frequency of the "pseudo" random sequence. There are plenty of ways to generate truly random numbers..the lava lamp method being one of my personal favorites. The trick is conveying this sequence to the intended receiver in a secure fashion.
The premise of a one-time pad (OTP) being unbreakable is sound provided the key is used once and only once and the positively destroyed.
With the OTP, as in any encryption scheme, there are at least two points of failure when exchanging messages....the sender and the intended receiver. Failure to complete the key destruction process at either end or key compromise (intercept) will render even the most powerful encryption scheme moot.
Re:imagine if other utilities did this
on
Broadband Crackdown
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Imagine if the phone company checked your lines for "business use" and shut you down unless you got a business contract.
The have do so for many years with regard to digital service. To residential customers, a phone line is sufficient if if passed voice. If you managed to get over a 300 baud connection , consider yourself lucky and don't complain if bandwidth sucks or you have drop offs.
However, if you want higher bandwidth or guarantees, then you are supposed to order a data grade line (which is usually a business line). In fact, they tell you in their service agreement that if they detect business use of the line, they will charge your more for it.
Telephone service is not a right but a priveledge to those willing to pay for use of the network. Same thing goes for most residential services like @Home. It is their network. You agree to their terms of service prior to them turning the service on. If you want to go outside the bounds of that agreement, then you are expected to pony up and purchase the appropriate service.
There is nothing wrong with them enforcing the terms of their agreement. If you don't like their actions or policies, then take your business elsewhere. However, these actions are being taken to protect their customers from others as well as themselves through their own incompetence and negligience.
The warning signs were plastered everywhere, remedies were posted in accessible locations, and these people did nothing to protect themselves. Now, they complain because their systems have been compromised. Oops.
Or how about the power company, charging you differently depending on how you use the power, and limiting you to, say, 10 amps peak if you don't have a business contract.
They can and do. Power companies routinely offer reduced rates for certain customers willing to meet certain guidelines. Example might be reduced rates for home owners willing to curtail power consumption during peek hours. They provide power real cheap so you can run your refrigerator and other minimal services (like keeping your house at 60 degrees). If you use the added circuits outside the conditions imposed on the line, the will either charge your a fortune or cut you off from the special deal altogether. It's not rocket science.
Empiror asks his not so bright Sith to "Clone the the dolly" (referring to Natalie whom he secretly desires). Instead of lots Princess to play with, he gets a docking bay full of genetically malformed sheep with big sharp nasty teeth and nasty wool coats.
Enter Obiwan with his double edge light sheers to save the day while Anakin knits a sweater (no wonder the kid turned out bad). Amidst the carnage, sits the Emperor mumbling something about the stupid Sith and mint jelly.
A man has has to know his limitations. He *JUST* had to challenge the media and then come to the US and expecting not to get caught.
Although, his actions are not a crime in his home land, he did commit a crime against a company protected by US law (no matter how ridiculous the law may be). The instant he set foot on US soil, he could be arrested, charged and prosecuted accordingly.
People are wondering why he is still being prosecuted despite having the charges dropped. Bottom line is that although the "victim" dropped charges, the federal gov't is aware a crime has been commited. Hence, they have to prosecute. Clearly, somebody wants his ass in sling and are determined to make an example out of him.
Somebody pointed out that they hope he flees because he won't get a fair trial here. Because they are trying so hard to force the DCMA on us, that statement is probably true. A conviction will set precedent. If he does manage to flee, he only has to wait for the statute of limitations to expire before he can attend his next conference in the US.
I'd like to see this tried in world court where they'll laugh at the DMCA and open the path for him collecting civil damages for violation of his rights.
BTW, what *IS* the Statute of Limitations on the DCMA? Knowing the forces behind it, it's probably knows no time limitation (like murder). Lord knows, they will make a witchhunt out of this and burn the little bugger at the stake just to get their point across.
Let's wish this guy luck, hope he runs fast, hides well, and pray the somebody in the High Court comes to their senses.
If a vendor complies and uses CLX and only CLX calls, their code should port to D6 and vice-versa.
My understanding is that BORLAND is helping fund the QT effort (especially for Windows). Their drive is to become a cross platform tool supplier rather than be bound to a single platform.
I'm suprised that my original post was marked as flamebait. My guess is they figured that I was implying that only decent programs can built for Linux using Kylix. However, Delphi 6 and Kylix are good attempts at making apps cross platform. As such, it is a good vehicle to move Windows apps to Linux.
The release of Kylix Open Source edition was to aid the Open Source community. In doing so, it is anticipated by the Delphi and Kylix users that more CLX compliant components will become available. When leading VCL vendors like DevExpress and Woll2Woll see that Kylix (and Linux) are viable platforms to which they can market their product, they will. But, it costs money and time to make the port from VCL to CLX. Other VCL vendors probably realize the same thing.
We are interested in moving our Delphi 5 app to Delphi 6 and Kylix. While we can migrate to D6, we can't to Kylix because of the non-availability of CLX replacements for many of the VCL components we use. This is unfortunate and I expect many other developers will encounter this as well.
Our plan was to wait out the XP debacle and, as people realize that their favorite apps won't run or not available on XP, they will begin looking elsewhere. We figure this will happen in about 3-4 years when NT4 and 2000 are hard to find commodities as M$ implements XP.
The issue is not that MS is preventing software (like ZoneAlarm) from running. There's no conspiracy here (arrogance maybe...but not a conspiracy). Bottom line is that they are saying that vendors will need to upgrade their wares to be compliant with the new platform. The aim here is to make a more stable platform.
In many ways, they are doing their customers a favor. I discovered two days ago that some networking software I recently wrote for 95/98/98se,NT4/2000 blows up on ME. Bottom line...I either need to find out why it fails (its probably a threading problem) or not certify my software for ME. If you run it on ME, you're on your own.
Naturally, I'd prefer better compliance between OS's but accept the fact that backwards compatibility is not always possible.
Now, I have other issues with XP...like the fact that it supposedly requires connectivity to the internet. I have customers that, for security reasons, can not connect to the internet.
As our customers are normally 3-4 years behind the bleeding edge, we're hoping that this marketing screwup at MS will lead more people to *nix platforms as the availabity of earlier generation MS products becomes more scare. Now, if only more Delphi compoent developers would release CLX compliant components rather than VCL I'd be a far happier customer.
While I may be digressing a bit, BORLAND has done us all a great favor by releasing Kylix Open Edition. Since Kylix relies on CLX rather than the VCL, CLX components developed for Delphi 6 will run under Kylix as well. This can not be said of the VCL (hence the need for CLX).
But, until companies like DevExpress and Woll2Woll realize that CLX is the way to go, the migration of decent software from Windows to Linux will be halted. Companies like DevExpress and Woll2Woll realize that there is a signifant effort and cost in moving from VCL to CLX. It's no wonder they are waiting to see how Kylix is acepted.
If we want to provide a suitable alternative to XP (and Microsoft), then one place the revolution can start is in the Kylix/CLX developer community. Grab a copy today and start developing some kick ass components. Then, Windows developers (and users) really will have a perceptual reason to migrate to a *nix and contain the prolific virus called Windows.
This truly is a shame. Some of our public safety sector customers in more affluent areas are utilizing Ricocette rather than CDPD to provide reliable, secure, high speed connectivity to the mobile unit.
In exchange for allowing Ricocette to mount those antenna's they were provided some accounts at reduced rates. The idea was to get the service installed and then sell the hell out of it to the public.
Our customers routinely saw 256K in the car when they had ordered 128K service. It really kicked and they experienced almost zero unanticipated lost connections. They were able to operate in the mobile unit as efficiently as if they were connected to the department's LAN.
Now, they will have to settle for lower performance CDPD connectivity if the Ricocette network goes dark. Man, does that ever suck.
Where I think this might come into play (if at all) would be higher up on the pyramid where slaves could not go. By substituting a kite for slaves (or paid workers as some have suggested), they could establish the necessary force to lift the blocks into place while controlling the kites from the ground.
While I doubt the ancients had nylon rope and low friction pulleys, they were quite adapt at making low friction surfaces. On a recent "Discovery" channel documentatary, the researchers places the slabs on wooden rails and then sprinkled the rails with water and used rolers of wood. This was sufficient lower the coefficient of friction and enable them to move the blocks.
A suitable substitute for nylon could be silk. Silk is actually a very strong material and was used for parachutes during WWII.
The science and techniques used by these engineers is not rocket science but simple leverage and pulley techniques. I could imagine the egyptians, a resourceful people, pulling off something like this using lower tech materials.
Let's say you were using the XYZ algorithm in a product before the patent expired. Everyone in the industry knows that the algorithm is patented.
You didn't license the algorithm but decided to take your chances and sold your product anyway. The company holding XYZ finds out about your actions and can immediately take action to protect their patent. In doing so, they may file suite to begin reclaimation for damages and/or seek an injunction to stop distribution of the product. They have the full support of the law on their side.
My guess is that they would then attempt to settle out of court. But, let's say you told them F*** off. You could reengineer your product to use something else if you can afford the luxury of reengineering and/or the PR implications. They know they have the legal right to come after you and will do so if a settlement isn't reached in order to avoid voiding their patent. End result, you still get sued and have to bare the cost of redevelopment, remarketing and, of course, the legal battle.
But, if you were shipping your product before they applied for the patent (and can prove it), then their patent can be overturned due to prior art.
If the patent was pending, the company needs to inform others using their disputed idea that idea is patent pending. This allows those using it to decide what course of action you want to take.
Once the patent is granted, you're on your own to make sure you aren't infringing and take the proper measure to license the use of the patent from its holder. If you were forewarned...your dead meat on a stick.
Now, I'm no lawyer...but I've come up against patents in the past. The real solution is to eliminate the legalese, get people in the PTO who understand what they are granting patents on, and make it easy to research existing patents and those pending.
The PTO does provide a web accessible search engine...Others provide similar services as well. But, its a cumbersome process to do yourself and you still face liability if you didn't do your homework.
In short, Ronin Developer is literate in English, yet he can't decipher a document that purports to limit his activity. What kind of justice is that!?!
Exactly. How can an IT professional ensure they are in compliance with the law when we can't make heads or tails of it. Even more so, the people who CAN read the legalize (i.e lawyers and judges) can't understand the technical aspects of what they are writing about.
No wonder this case has been bantered around for so long. Laws written in a manner incomprehensible to the lay person should have no merit. Legal documents should be written concisely in the native language that is understood by all with normal intelligience and the ability to read for the society for which it governs.
Naturally, those in the legal profession may feel differenty. They will make the claim that the language is needed to precisely and unambiguosly define what the document is meant to say. Again, it is clear that in this case, they failed miseraby.
T professionals (ala programmers) also speak in a language the defines their problem domain in a precise and unambiguous manner. In our case, however, a miswritten statement is construed as a software defect and often considered unacceptable to the people that use it. We're forced to fix the problem or face consequences such as a lawsuit or losing business.
Why are those in the legal profession not held to the same standard? Perhaps, it's because the people that enforce those standards are the same ones who setthem in the first place.
I don't think it covers all file retrieval. It appears to be more targetted to the download of software requiring an unlock code. This unlock code is transferred upon their receipt of an authentic request. From what I've read, this transfer seems to be done electronically.
Nor does it appear that this patent applies to software protected using electronic licenses (i.e. copy protection or feature limiting licenses).
Now, I'm too lazy to read the whole patent, but if I encrypt my file for download and then send the unlock code later (via snail mail, for example), do I violate this patent?
Unfortunately, the clock may be ticking for the expiration of the patent. But, if the patent is upheld, they can collect retroactively to the day the patent was granted.
As the previous posted mentioned, I suspect that this will be thrown out due to prior art when it reaches the lower courts. Let's hope that it is.
I'll stick with just one item in your response rather than getting into an unnecessary flame war.
It --IS-- possible that the first time I used my browser to view the Online Status of the Gateway it may have made me click an "I AGREE" button. I've been wondering about that, but I don't remember seeing one, and even if I had I normally do at least skim over the sub-section titles. I think I would have remembered something about ownership of the Gateway. But I won't deny them ownership of their precious little Gateway, as long as they keep feeding me this DSL! RAAA!
Yes...you had to click on a button to accept the terms of their contract when you first started to use the gateway. That's the contract. Question is, how many people actually read those things in their entirety? Probably not many.
Personally, I've received a fair amount of information from them. It mostly came via e-mail to another account I already possessed. All of my configuration info came via e-mail. Sales info came via mail. But, if you didn't have an e-mail account to send to, I suspect they'd send it to you via snail mail.
And, like you, I was suprised to find a $24.95 overcharge and called them on it. Why was I suprised...mainly because I forgot about the S&H and wanted to make sure I was getting my 2 months at 1/2 price. Stupid me.
Anyway, I wish you luck with their service. Like I've said before, my experience has been a relatively good one.
If they (MIS) installed it on your computer, then there it should be okay to run it provided you are doing so lawfully and it wasn't put there by mistake. Thus, most screen savers aren't considered a threat (unless you run them on an NT server where they consume 100% CPU time and drag your systems to a crawl...seen it..it sucks).
Thinks like RC5 and Seti@home have alternative configurations that would allow them to run all the time, when idle, or as a screen saver.
Next, then consume bandwidth. This is minor in most cases.
Finally, they potentially expose the network to the outside. You have to worry about rouge versions of the program (or even improperly designed programs), theft of passwords from the remote system and a slew of other security related concerns that could compromise your network.
Having seen the havoc a simple napster client caused by telling the whole world about our IP, I've seen thousands of attempts to garner access to our systems via telnet and ftp. Not just port scans, mind you, but real attacks. The activity increased exponentially when Napster was first responding to the legal order.
I view Napster as one of the biggest security concerns for a business because it turns the client into a server. It is now an employment terminating event (via acceptable usage policy) to run unauthorized network endabled programs on our systems. Our employees now check with the authorized use of software or obtain permission from MIS before installing anything new.
If they want to run something unauthorized, they can run it at home on non-company owned systems. Until their compromised system affects my systems, I don't really care what they do on their personally owned systems.
Clearly, you must be one of the brain-fscking dead HS school students with no concept of history or law. You must have grown up in the "if I think it so...it must be so" world. Let's pray you're sterile. If not, grab a pair of sissors and do it yourself.
Learn the law, asshole. As soon as you start using company resources against policy, you are potentially violating the law. When it is unauthorized and costs them money (as is a network connection to the internet) its theft. Plain and simple.
The point is, there has to be a policy in effect. Employees are responsible for understanding the applicable policies (e-mail, network usage, etc.) These are promulgated via an employee manual, by law, at corporations. If there is no acceptable usage policy, then they guy has a fighting chance. But, I'd venture that there is a catch-all clause that covers theft of services or something like that. In the end, he will most likely lose.
Ummm...is embezzlement a serious crime? Yup. That's why it's a felony.
Remember the story of the accounting software guy who transferred fractional pennies to his account? Nailed.
How about that poor smuck who ran "New Era Investments"? Got 25 years for running a pyramid scam. Nobody died or was even physically hurt. On the same page, two time murderer received the same sentence. What's wrong with this picture?
Using computer resources that don't belong to you and costing them money? Probably wouldn't have been an issue until the theft reached the level of "grand larceny". At that point, it became a felony. If someone "stole" 1/2 million from me (material or services) I'd want their ass locked up as well.
This is not a government issue. Its about doing something you're not supposed to and getting caught. Then, its time to pay the piper.
Amazing how many people seem to think that using somebody elses resources for unauthorized fun or profit is not a big deal. Then again, 1 out 5 kids todays (in the US) can't tell you what July 4th is about or even what country we sought our independence from. And, worse still, 1 out of 10 can't even tell you who the first president of the United States was (Abraham Lincoln...right?)
If our kids are this ignorant, then no wonder they think stealing computer time isn't a crime.
Of course, isn't it our state run school systems that are supposed to impart this knowledge? Maybe the gov't is at fault after all. Must be a conspiracy.
Slashdot Mirror
Allowing the underlying application protocols to implement security is a good idea.
We've deployed a wireless application over CDPD. While we can pretty much assume the traffic between modem and CDPD carrier is encrypted and authenticated using the built in capabilities, we can't say the same about the connection from the carrier to our customer's site and their WAN.
As such, we employ an embedded VPN solution at each client and terminating site. Traffic is encrypted from the moment it leaves the mobile unit until it reaches its final destination. Unencrypted trafffic is not visible except on the terminating LAN (if the VPN is running on a machine seperate from the server).
Shooting rockets with trail wires is one way to get a bolt to strike the same location twice. Another technique that I read about some six months ago was to use a laser.
A high powered laser would be shot towards an approaching thunderhead. The laser would also superheat the air in its path producing a conductive plasma. The electrical discharge from the cloud would then travel down this path where it would meet up with a lighting rod. There was talk about using this technique to take the punch out of potentially severe thunderstorms.
The technique of using Estes rockets certainly is probably a lot cheaper than a high powered laser...but you'd get a lot more shots with the laser.
Meant to say...'I DIDN'T just turn them around'. Man...maybe I am that stupd...Old age setting in.
RD
No..I turned turn them around (I'm not that stupid).
By default, the tx and rcv crystals are tuned to two slightly different frequencies ( I think by 4.5khz, if I recall properly...it's been a long time).
I swapped the transmit and receive crystals. By the way the circuits were designed, this pushed the transmitter and receiver off frequency. It did require a slight recalibration of the receiver's tuned circuits to have it see the new frequency (the tx side was pretty much fixed). Having an O-scope and freq meter came in handy to make sure thinks were tuned right.
The PLL model was a little easier because the it just meant selecting the proper input values (which were printed on the schematic). Back then, the schematics were truly open source.
1977 - Reversed the channel 14 crystals in my 1.5 watt CB hand-held. The new, clear channel was then known as "Crazy Charlie". Despite being the height of a solar flare cycle, I was still amazed when discovered I was chatting with an individual in Jamaica while I was outside Philadelphia, PA.
1977 was a good year for DXing. Routinely spoke with folks well outside the normally extremely limited range of 1-2 miles with this handheld.
RD
Of course there's life in that system! But, don't expect to hear from them anytime soon.
/. effect. Took them several days to restart their systems while they muttered something about a something called a "cmdr taco" and intergalactic war.
How do I know? Well...during my last alien abduction, they told me so (The captain even has a pet shnitzoid named Spazmork). While passing through our solar system, their systems were knocked offline when they encountered an intense wall of RF energy packets originating from atop a coffee shop in NYC. They called it the
They are now posting warnings and to other civilizations warning of the danger of passing through the Sol system.
Interesting. Of concern to me would be accountability for those using your network. If some joker decides to download kiddie porn or engage in some other illegal action, the IP law enforcement will see is yours and not that of the law breaker. You'd have a tough time explaining that you weren't the one engaging in the activity.
Now, perhaps if there was some kind of free registry service that tracked users by the MAC.
At the time of the purchase of a wireless card, they would be entered into the registry and a digital certificate issued binding their name, address, public key and MAC address. When the user entered a free zone, they would exchange their credentials and you'd be able to provide the feds with the necessary tracking information.
Of course, this takes the fun out of the project as you'd have a lot of record keeping to do. Just how much...I dunno.
Anybody think such a service could work? If not, why? What would you do to improve upon it?
RD
I couldn't agree with you more. When I was a young teen, I lived in the suburbs of Philadelphia. Because I had such and interest in astronomy, they allowed me purchase my first telescope, a 4 1/4 inch reflector from Edmund Scientific. I could go out into my back yard on almost any given night and have a clear sky (weather permitting, of course) and see most of the stellar sights. It was amazing and awe inspiring. We'd go to farmlands of Lancaster and it was just like you could fall off the Earth.
Today, I live even further in the "country" and can see almost nothing. Yes, there are a few nights when I can see the stars, those are the nights of power failures. It's very sad. As real-estate developers continue to build larger, more luxurious homes with overzealous lighting in already heavily populated areas or buy out the precious open space, the situation just keeps getting worse.
In the 60's and 70's, the sky was still pretty amazing. No wonder we wanted to go into space. Now, we look up and it's not quite so awe inspiring...sorta like a polluted beach or something. "Who wants to go there???" we ask.
People wonder what the big fuss is all about. But, as the previous poster stated, it truly is a humbling experience to look up and see the heavens as our forefathers did hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago.
In some respects, the Californian's are lucky. With the rolling blackouts, maybe they'll get a glimpse to see what we are all missing.
Like driving, telephone service is a priviledge and not a right. I have never read in the Constitution or its ammendments (ala the Bill of Rights) that I have the right to telephone service. If it isn't there, it is not a right but a priveledge.
We, the citizens of this country, seem to think that somethings as common as telephone service or driving are rights. They are not. Simply because something is regulated or provided for by law does not imply it is a right. If you know what provision of the Consitition guarantees basic or data grade phone service, I'd be much interested in hearing about it.
The United States is *NOT* a communist or socialist society. What you construde as a right may be in those societies. Not here. We may have our liberal factions, but we are capitalist society driven by those rules. Yes, the gov't can establish regulations to provide minimal services such as publicly accessible phone. I don't think data grade service is one of them. Unless you are making an emergency call, you still have to put money in them or you get cut off. No?
If you don't pay your bill, they CAN and WILL cut you off. Same thing goes for cell phone use. The exception is 911 or emergency calls. All public pay phones and cell phones will permit a 911 call at no cost (hence you should keep your cell phone even if you no longer have service).
When I have moved and needed to set up phone service to my new domicile, the phone line at my old residence loses its dialtone. I can not make a phone call when the line has been disconnected DESPITE the fact that there is a phone line running into the old residence. This is because I have not paid for service in both locations.
The service they must provide to you is, naturally, no-discriminatory as you pointed out. But, the rate at which you pay for your calls is based upon a legally binding contract. Go over your allocated minutes or call into a long distance area, and different charges apply. Am I not correct? Regulated or not, they are in the business to make money.
Gas, electric and water companies can also cut off service. But, they may not do so when such action endangers life (that *IS* in the consitituion...You have the right to *life*, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). That is why they won't cut off service in the dead of winter or to a nursing home during a heat wave. When the endangering condition no longer exists, they can and will cut off your service. And, they will temporarily restore it if the dangerous condition resumes.
Your assumption is correct only if the plain text is greater in length than the repetition frequency of the "pseudo" random sequence. There are plenty of ways to generate truly random numbers..the lava lamp method being one of my personal favorites. The trick is conveying this sequence to the intended receiver in a secure fashion.
The premise of a one-time pad (OTP) being unbreakable is sound provided the key is used once and only once and the positively destroyed.
With the OTP, as in any encryption scheme, there are at least two points of failure when exchanging messages....the sender and the intended receiver. Failure to complete the key destruction process at either end or key compromise (intercept) will render even the most powerful encryption scheme moot.
The have do so for many years with regard to digital service. To residential customers, a phone line is sufficient if if passed voice. If you managed to get over a 300 baud connection , consider yourself lucky and don't complain if bandwidth sucks or you have drop offs.
However, if you want higher bandwidth or guarantees, then you are supposed to order a data grade line (which is usually a business line). In fact, they tell you in their service agreement that if they detect business use of the line, they will charge your more for it.
Telephone service is not a right but a priveledge to those willing to pay for use of the network. Same thing goes for most residential services like @Home. It is their network. You agree to their terms of service prior to them turning the service on. If you want to go outside the bounds of that agreement, then you are expected to pony up and purchase the appropriate service.
There is nothing wrong with them enforcing the terms of their agreement. If you don't like their actions or policies, then take your business elsewhere. However, these actions are being taken to protect their customers from others as well as themselves through their own incompetence and negligience.
The warning signs were plastered everywhere, remedies were posted in accessible locations, and these people did nothing to protect themselves. Now, they complain because their systems have been compromised. Oops.
Or how about the power company, charging you differently depending on how you use the power, and limiting you to, say, 10 amps peak if you don't have a business contract.
They can and do. Power companies routinely offer reduced rates for certain customers willing to meet certain guidelines. Example might be reduced rates for home owners willing to curtail power consumption during peek hours. They provide power real cheap so you can run your refrigerator and other minimal services (like keeping your house at 60 degrees). If you use the added circuits outside the conditions imposed on the line, the will either charge your a fortune or cut you off from the special deal altogether. It's not rocket science.
I can see it now...
Empiror asks his not so bright Sith to "Clone the the dolly" (referring to Natalie whom he secretly desires). Instead of lots Princess to play with, he gets a docking bay full of genetically malformed sheep with big sharp nasty teeth and nasty wool coats.
Enter Obiwan with his double edge light sheers to save the day while Anakin knits a sweater (no wonder the kid turned out bad). Amidst the carnage, sits the Emperor mumbling something about the stupid Sith and mint jelly.
A man has has to know his limitations. He *JUST* had to challenge the media and then come to the US and expecting not to get caught.
Although, his actions are not a crime in his home land, he did commit a crime against a company protected by US law (no matter how ridiculous the law may be). The instant he set foot on US soil, he could be arrested, charged and prosecuted accordingly.
People are wondering why he is still being prosecuted despite having the charges dropped. Bottom line is that although the "victim" dropped charges, the federal gov't is aware a crime has been commited. Hence, they have to prosecute. Clearly, somebody wants his ass in sling and are determined to make an example out of him.
Somebody pointed out that they hope he flees because he won't get a fair trial here. Because they are trying so hard to force the DCMA on us, that statement is probably true. A conviction will set precedent. If he does manage to flee, he only has to wait for the statute of limitations to expire before he can attend his next conference in the US.
I'd like to see this tried in world court where they'll laugh at the DMCA and open the path for him collecting civil damages for violation of his rights.
BTW, what *IS* the Statute of Limitations on the DCMA? Knowing the forces behind it, it's probably knows no time limitation (like murder). Lord knows, they will make a witchhunt out of this and burn the little bugger at the stake just to get their point across.
Let's wish this guy luck, hope he runs fast, hides well, and pray the somebody in the High Court comes to their senses.
If a vendor complies and uses CLX and only CLX calls, their code should port to D6 and vice-versa.
My understanding is that BORLAND is helping fund the QT effort (especially for Windows). Their drive is to become a cross platform tool supplier rather than be bound to a single platform.
I'm suprised that my original post was marked as flamebait. My guess is they figured that I was implying that only decent programs can built for Linux using Kylix. However, Delphi 6 and Kylix are good attempts at making apps cross platform. As such, it is a good vehicle to move Windows apps to Linux.
The release of Kylix Open Source edition was to aid the Open Source community. In doing so, it is anticipated by the Delphi and Kylix users that more CLX compliant components will become available. When leading VCL vendors like DevExpress and Woll2Woll see that Kylix (and Linux) are viable platforms to which they can market their product, they will. But, it costs money and time to make the port from VCL to CLX. Other VCL vendors probably realize the same thing.
We are interested in moving our Delphi 5 app to Delphi 6 and Kylix. While we can migrate to D6, we can't to Kylix because of the non-availability of CLX replacements for many of the VCL components we use. This is unfortunate and I expect many other developers will encounter this as well.
Our plan was to wait out the XP debacle and, as people realize that their favorite apps won't run or not available on XP, they will begin looking elsewhere. We figure this will happen in about 3-4 years when NT4 and 2000 are hard to find commodities as M$ implements XP.
The issue is not that MS is preventing software (like ZoneAlarm) from running. There's no conspiracy here (arrogance maybe...but not a conspiracy). Bottom line is that they are saying that vendors will need to upgrade their wares to be compliant with the new platform. The aim here is to make a more stable platform.
In many ways, they are doing their customers a favor. I discovered two days ago that some networking software I recently wrote for 95/98/98se,NT4/2000 blows up on ME. Bottom line...I either need to find out why it fails (its probably a threading problem) or not certify my software for ME. If you run it on ME, you're on your own.
Naturally, I'd prefer better compliance between OS's but accept the fact that backwards compatibility is not always possible.
Now, I have other issues with XP...like the fact that it supposedly requires connectivity to the internet. I have customers that, for security reasons, can not connect to the internet.
As our customers are normally 3-4 years behind the bleeding edge, we're hoping that this marketing screwup at MS will lead more people to *nix platforms as the availabity of earlier generation MS products becomes more scare. Now, if only more Delphi compoent developers would release CLX compliant components rather than VCL I'd be a far happier customer.
While I may be digressing a bit, BORLAND has done us all a great favor by releasing Kylix Open Edition. Since Kylix relies on CLX rather than the VCL, CLX components developed for Delphi 6 will run under Kylix as well. This can not be said of the VCL (hence the need for CLX).
But, until companies like DevExpress and Woll2Woll realize that CLX is the way to go, the migration of decent software from Windows to Linux will be halted. Companies like DevExpress and Woll2Woll realize that there is a signifant effort and cost in moving from VCL to CLX. It's no wonder they are waiting to see how Kylix is acepted.
If we want to provide a suitable alternative to XP (and Microsoft), then one place the revolution can start is in the Kylix/CLX developer community. Grab a copy today and start developing some kick ass components. Then, Windows developers (and users) really will have a perceptual reason to migrate to a *nix and contain the prolific virus called Windows.
This truly is a shame. Some of our public safety sector customers in more affluent areas are utilizing Ricocette rather than CDPD to provide reliable, secure, high speed connectivity to the mobile unit.
In exchange for allowing Ricocette to mount those antenna's they were provided some accounts at reduced rates. The idea was to get the service installed and then sell the hell out of it to the public.
Our customers routinely saw 256K in the car when they had ordered 128K service. It really kicked and they experienced almost zero unanticipated lost connections. They were able to operate in the mobile unit as efficiently as if they were connected to the department's LAN.
Now, they will have to settle for lower performance CDPD connectivity if the Ricocette network goes dark. Man, does that ever suck.
Where I think this might come into play (if at all) would be higher up on the pyramid where slaves could not go. By substituting a kite for slaves (or paid workers as some have suggested), they could establish the necessary force to lift the blocks into place while controlling the kites from the ground.
While I doubt the ancients had nylon rope and low friction pulleys, they were quite adapt at making low friction surfaces. On a recent "Discovery" channel documentatary, the researchers places the slabs on wooden rails and then sprinkled the rails with water and used rolers of wood. This was sufficient lower the coefficient of friction and enable them to move the blocks.
A suitable substitute for nylon could be silk. Silk is actually a very strong material and was used for parachutes during WWII.
The science and techniques used by these engineers is not rocket science but simple leverage and pulley techniques. I could imagine the egyptians, a resourceful people, pulling off something like this using lower tech materials.
Yes..but it all depends.
Let's say you were using the XYZ algorithm in a product before the patent expired. Everyone in the industry knows that the algorithm is patented.
You didn't license the algorithm but decided to take your chances and sold your product anyway. The company holding XYZ finds out about your actions and can immediately take action to protect their patent. In doing so, they may file suite to begin reclaimation for damages and/or seek an injunction to stop distribution of the product. They have the full support of the law on their side.
My guess is that they would then attempt to settle out of court. But, let's say you told them F*** off. You could reengineer your product to use something else if you can afford the luxury of reengineering and/or the PR implications. They know they have the legal right to come after you and will do so if a settlement isn't reached in order to avoid voiding their patent. End result, you still get sued and have to bare the cost of redevelopment, remarketing and, of course, the legal battle.
But, if you were shipping your product before they applied for the patent (and can prove it), then their patent can be overturned due to prior art.
If the patent was pending, the company needs to inform others using their disputed idea that idea is patent pending. This allows those using it to decide what course of action you want to take.
Once the patent is granted, you're on your own to make sure you aren't infringing and take the proper measure to license the use of the patent from its holder. If you were forewarned...your dead meat on a stick.
Now, I'm no lawyer...but I've come up against patents in the past. The real solution is to eliminate the legalese, get people in the PTO who understand what they are granting patents on, and make it easy to research existing patents and those pending.
The PTO does provide a web accessible search engine...Others provide similar services as well. But, its a cumbersome process to do yourself and you still face liability if you didn't do your homework.
Exactly. How can an IT professional ensure they are in compliance with the law when we can't make heads or tails of it. Even more so, the people who CAN read the legalize (i.e lawyers and judges) can't understand the technical aspects of what they are writing about.
No wonder this case has been bantered around for so long. Laws written in a manner incomprehensible to the lay person should have no merit. Legal documents should be written concisely in the native language that is understood by all with normal intelligience and the ability to read for the society for which it governs.
Naturally, those in the legal profession may feel differenty. They will make the claim that the language is needed to precisely and unambiguosly define what the document is meant to say. Again, it is clear that in this case, they failed miseraby.
T professionals (ala programmers) also speak in a language the defines their problem domain in a precise and unambiguous manner. In our case, however, a miswritten statement is construed as a software defect and often considered unacceptable to the people that use it. We're forced to fix the problem or face consequences such as a lawsuit or losing business.
Why are those in the legal profession not held to the same standard? Perhaps, it's because the people that enforce those standards are the same ones who setthem in the first place.
I don't think it covers all file retrieval. It appears to be more targetted to the download of software requiring an unlock code. This unlock code is transferred upon their receipt of an authentic request. From what I've read, this transfer seems to be done electronically.
Nor does it appear that this patent applies to software protected using electronic licenses (i.e. copy protection or feature limiting licenses).
Now, I'm too lazy to read the whole patent, but if I encrypt my file for download and then send the unlock code later (via snail mail, for example), do I violate this patent?
RD
Unfortunately, the clock may be ticking for the expiration of the patent. But, if the patent is upheld, they can collect retroactively to the day the patent was granted.
As the previous posted mentioned, I suspect that this will be thrown out due to prior art when it reaches the lower courts. Let's hope that it is.
RD
It --IS-- possible that the first time I used my browser to view the Online Status of the Gateway it may have made me click an "I AGREE" button. I've been wondering about that, but I don't remember seeing one, and even if I had I normally do at least skim over the sub-section titles. I think I would have remembered something about ownership of the Gateway. But I won't deny them ownership of their precious little Gateway, as long as they keep feeding me this DSL! RAAA!
Yes...you had to click on a button to accept the terms of their contract when you first started to use the gateway. That's the contract. Question is, how many people actually read those things in their entirety? Probably not many.
Personally, I've received a fair amount of information from them. It mostly came via e-mail to another account I already possessed. All of my configuration info came via e-mail. Sales info came via mail. But, if you didn't have an e-mail account to send to, I suspect they'd send it to you via snail mail.
And, like you, I was suprised to find a $24.95 overcharge and called them on it. Why was I suprised...mainly because I forgot about the S&H and wanted to make sure I was getting my 2 months at 1/2 price. Stupid me.
Anyway, I wish you luck with their service. Like I've said before, my experience has been a relatively good one.
If they (MIS) installed it on your computer, then there it should be okay to run it provided you are doing so lawfully and it wasn't put there by mistake. Thus, most screen savers aren't considered a threat (unless you run them on an NT server where they consume 100% CPU time and drag your systems to a crawl...seen it..it sucks).
Thinks like RC5 and Seti@home have alternative configurations that would allow them to run all the time, when idle, or as a screen saver.
Next, then consume bandwidth. This is minor in most cases.
Finally, they potentially expose the network to the outside. You have to worry about rouge versions of the program (or even improperly designed programs), theft of passwords from the remote system and a slew of other security related concerns that could compromise your network.
Having seen the havoc a simple napster client caused by telling the whole world about our IP, I've seen thousands of attempts to garner access to our systems via telnet and ftp. Not just port scans, mind you, but real attacks. The activity increased exponentially when Napster was first responding to the legal order.
I view Napster as one of the biggest security concerns for a business because it turns the client into a server. It is now an employment terminating event (via acceptable usage policy) to run unauthorized network endabled programs on our systems. Our employees now check with the authorized use of software or obtain permission from MIS before installing anything new.
If they want to run something unauthorized, they can run it at home on non-company owned systems. Until their compromised system affects my systems, I don't really care what they do on their personally owned systems.
Clearly, you must be one of the brain-fscking dead HS school students with no concept of history or law. You must have grown up in the "if I think it so...it must be so" world. Let's pray you're sterile. If not, grab a pair of sissors and do it yourself.
Learn the law, asshole. As soon as you start using company resources against policy, you are potentially violating the law. When it is unauthorized and costs them money (as is a network connection to the internet) its theft. Plain and simple.
The point is, there has to be a policy in effect. Employees are responsible for understanding the applicable policies (e-mail, network usage, etc.) These are promulgated via an employee manual, by law, at corporations. If there is no acceptable usage policy, then they guy has a fighting chance. But, I'd venture that there is a catch-all clause that covers theft of services or something like that. In the end, he will most likely lose.
Ummm...is embezzlement a serious crime? Yup. That's why it's a felony.
Remember the story of the accounting software guy who transferred fractional pennies to his account? Nailed.
How about that poor smuck who ran "New Era Investments"? Got 25 years for running a pyramid scam. Nobody died or was even physically hurt. On the same page, two time murderer received the same sentence. What's wrong with this picture?
Using computer resources that don't belong to you and costing them money? Probably wouldn't have been an issue until the theft reached the level of "grand larceny". At that point, it became a felony. If someone "stole" 1/2 million from me (material or services) I'd want their ass locked up as well.
This is not a government issue. Its about doing something you're not supposed to and getting caught. Then, its time to pay the piper.
Amazing how many people seem to think that using somebody elses resources for unauthorized fun or profit is not a big deal. Then again, 1 out 5 kids todays (in the US) can't tell you what July 4th is about or even what country we sought our independence from. And, worse still, 1 out of 10 can't even tell you who the first president of the United States was (Abraham Lincoln...right?)
If our kids are this ignorant, then no wonder they think stealing computer time isn't a crime.
Of course, isn't it our state run school systems that are supposed to impart this knowledge? Maybe the gov't is at fault after all. Must be a conspiracy.
RD