Perhaps you should learn the difference between simple incompetence and scamming. Are you asserting that selling an insecure system is somehow illegal?
Instead of continually trying to obfuscate things by bringing up irrelevant L2 technologies, why don't you come right out and support your claim by naming a service provider router which can't do ingress L3 ACLs with minimal or no impact. Hell, there are lots of ISPs who do deep packet inspection on their customer's data.
"Not all ISP edge technologies allow access to customer traffic for the necessary source IP filtering before it has already been aggregated with traffic from a large number of other customers - typically several hundreds. "
That's a non-sequitur. So what if they can only filter on the source being from a single, even large, subnet? That wouldn't eliminate reflection attacks within the subnet, but it would prevent them in the other 99.9999% of the Internet. And no, it's not difficult nor does it take expensive or specialized devices.
Same reason someone might want to run a *publicly* accessible http server - to make content available.
The correct question is why do ISPs allow packets to enter their networks with spoofed source addresses, something upon which reflection attacks depend. BCP38 has been around for over 15 years, and the problem and solution were well known before that.
Yeah. Damn muscle memory in my fingers sometimes gets in the way of spelling. Probably less of an issue for someone who hunts and pecks. Glad you were able to figure it out though.
Ah, but there's fundamental difference. A shrink-wrap license (or "click accept" for an upgrade which was promised as part of the original sale) is an attempt to impose additional terms and conditions after the contract has already been agreed, accepted and value considered.
Slapping on a different UPC is fraudulently trying to alter the negotiation without the knowledge or consent of the other party, prior to the creation of a contract.
They're both fraud, the difference being which party is committing fraud.
"such as OS upgrades that you click Accept in order to install"
I just put a Post-it note over the text, saying something like "By continuing the installation after I click Accept, you grant me unlimited rights to use the product in any way I want." That way, a coercive, unnegotiated contract which is good for the goose can be turned into one which is good for the gander.
What EULA? I buy used cars, and haven't signed any EULA with the manufacturer. I'm not bound by whatever the PO did. I also have no need to copy any copyrighted materials from the car, so some dicey shrink-wrap type thing can't happen, either.
You're doing the same thing, conflating an exchange rate with value. As soon as you say "price of gold," you're no longer talking about value, only exchange rate. The value of a house doesn't change dramatically, it provides the same shelter, living space, amenities, etc. year after year. What changes is the value of fiat currency, so the exchange rate changes. Similarly with gold - the supply is naturally constrained (unlike diamonds), it is easily divisible, doesn't degrade, widely exchanged. What happened with real estate is that fiat currency became devalued over time (inflation), so the price of a house in fiat currency became high. Some people were overextending themselves by making risky bets that they would be able to pay off loans with future dollars which were further devalued (inflated). When a recession occurred the fiat money supply shrank, fiat currency became more valuable - and it took less to buy a home. Some people lost the bet, but the value of their house never really changed, only the value held by fiat currency.
That was good for people who exhibited responsible behavior and saved their money, bad for those who gambled on credit.
Your argument is based not on fundamentals, but on the pragmatic fact that most transactions occur with fiat currency. That doesn't change the basic fact that the value of fiat currency is subject to artificial manipulation (quantitative easing, anyone?). The argument for gold is based on an "all else being equal" situation, where gold would be the most widely accepted of exchange. In that case, gold has value for the same reasons that Bitcoin does - is naturally constrained (unlike, say, diamonds), easily verified, easily divisible, doesn't degrade, and is easily transferred. That makes it intrinsically valuable as a means of exchange. All of those things, except the constraint, are what makes fiat currency have value, so the argument is really whether the value of money should be subject to artificial manipulation. Hyperinflation has never occurred with a gold backed currency, it has with fiat currencies. So much for your claim that fiat currency holds it's real price better than gold.
If you wish to continue the discussion, drop the condescending attitude.
" its value can literally double (or fall in half) in the space of 1 calendar year, it'd make business wildly unpredictable. (Just imagine... that mortgage you got denominated in gold? One year later you owe twice the value of the house.) "
You're unclear on the concept. You're apparently referencing getting a loan to purchase that house without saying as much. The value of the house doesn't change because you owe gold - you still owe the same amount of gold you agreed to. When you say the value of the house changes, what you really mean is that the exchange rate between fiat currency and gold has changed. If it takes more fiat currency to exchange for the gold you owe, then it's not the value of gold which has gone up, but that the fiat currency has been devalued, which means it is not a good store of value.
Your whole argument is based on gold not as money, but as an asset valued in fiat currency. The amount of gold is quite stable and not subject to artificial manipulation. It's the manipulation of fiat currencies which causes the exchange rate to change.
"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it... the sub ran aground... recon team executed the sailors... Most of the recon team was killed..."
"Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Nope. It's designed to trip on when a sudden and significant overload is detected. Whether that's from a humorous bird dropping, or a more serious cause doesn't really matter - it detected a significant anomaly and took safe action. The system is reacting to measurements/inputs, not causes.
And, it's not simply "bird shit from above" as you so blithely put it, it was a "streamer" from a large bird, as mentioned in the summary. That's a continuous stream, which to a high voltage circuit is little different than a wire shorting two conductors.
Oh, just to show how common these things are, look here. "...623 power disruptions caused by squirrels, 214 by birds, 53 by raccoons, one by a Hannah Montana balloon, and a handful of other incidents caused by everything from snakes to slugs."
Seems like things worked as they should, if anything with an error on the side of safety. In a similar vein, power substations often shut down because squirrels short out the lines, tripping safety systems.
Where's the news in things working as they should?
A person or corporation can be compelled to testify about facts they know about. That's quite different than compelling speech which creates new facts.
Boeing failed with the SST, due to anticipated fuel costs not meeting market needs. Similarly with the Concorde, which couldn't operate profitably.
Sure, there are some rich folk who would pay for short flight times, but the mass market is price conscious. The problem with supersonic flight is not sonic booms, but efficiency.
Finally, why is NASA wasting taxpayer money designing passenger aircraft for the civilian market?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should learn the difference between simple incompetence and scamming. Are you asserting that selling an insecure system is somehow illegal?
"Whoever sold this system to the hotel needs to be outed and publicly shamed."
No, they should win salesman of the year. The shaming should go to whoever at the hotel didn't do due diligence, and bought the system.
Instead of continually trying to obfuscate things by bringing up irrelevant L2 technologies, why don't you come right out and support your claim by naming a service provider router which can't do ingress L3 ACLs with minimal or no impact. Hell, there are lots of ISPs who do deep packet inspection on their customer's data.
Meh. Commercial grade routers will do this, easily, in hardware.
"Not all ISP edge technologies allow access to customer traffic for the necessary source IP filtering before it has already been aggregated with traffic from a large number of other customers - typically several hundreds. "
That's a non-sequitur. So what if they can only filter on the source being from a single, even large, subnet? That wouldn't eliminate reflection attacks within the subnet, but it would prevent them in the other 99.9999% of the Internet. And no, it's not difficult nor does it take expensive or specialized devices.
Same reason someone might want to run a *publicly* accessible http server - to make content available.
The correct question is why do ISPs allow packets to enter their networks with spoofed source addresses, something upon which reflection attacks depend. BCP38 has been around for over 15 years, and the problem and solution were well known before that.
I type lots of words with the digraph "oi" in them. Do you use many words with "oei?" Can you even name a common one other than Boeing?
Yeah. Damn muscle memory in my fingers sometimes gets in the way of spelling. Probably less of an issue for someone who hunts and pecks. Glad you were able to figure it out though.
I can see Boing (a US company) calling it a bathroom, a restroom, a toilet, or a head. But loo? That's Airbus territory.
"strings firmware.bin" is now considered reverse-engineering?
Ah, but there's fundamental difference. A shrink-wrap license (or "click accept" for an upgrade which was promised as part of the original sale) is an attempt to impose additional terms and conditions after the contract has already been agreed, accepted and value considered.
Slapping on a different UPC is fraudulently trying to alter the negotiation without the knowledge or consent of the other party, prior to the creation of a contract.
They're both fraud, the difference being which party is committing fraud.
"such as OS upgrades that you click Accept in order to install"
I just put a Post-it note over the text, saying something like "By continuing the installation after I click Accept, you grant me unlimited rights to use the product in any way I want." That way, a coercive, unnegotiated contract which is good for the goose can be turned into one which is good for the gander.
"Take a look at the EULA of your car"
What EULA? I buy used cars, and haven't signed any EULA with the manufacturer. I'm not bound by whatever the PO did. I also have no need to copy any copyrighted materials from the car, so some dicey shrink-wrap type thing can't happen, either.
You're doing the same thing, conflating an exchange rate with value. As soon as you say "price of gold," you're no longer talking about value, only exchange rate. The value of a house doesn't change dramatically, it provides the same shelter, living space, amenities, etc. year after year. What changes is the value of fiat currency, so the exchange rate changes. Similarly with gold - the supply is naturally constrained (unlike diamonds), it is easily divisible, doesn't degrade, widely exchanged. What happened with real estate is that fiat currency became devalued over time (inflation), so the price of a house in fiat currency became high. Some people were overextending themselves by making risky bets that they would be able to pay off loans with future dollars which were further devalued (inflated). When a recession occurred the fiat money supply shrank, fiat currency became more valuable - and it took less to buy a home. Some people lost the bet, but the value of their house never really changed, only the value held by fiat currency.
That was good for people who exhibited responsible behavior and saved their money, bad for those who gambled on credit.
Your argument is based not on fundamentals, but on the pragmatic fact that most transactions occur with fiat currency. That doesn't change the basic fact that the value of fiat currency is subject to artificial manipulation (quantitative easing, anyone?). The argument for gold is based on an "all else being equal" situation, where gold would be the most widely accepted of exchange. In that case, gold has value for the same reasons that Bitcoin does - is naturally constrained (unlike, say, diamonds), easily verified, easily divisible, doesn't degrade, and is easily transferred. That makes it intrinsically valuable as a means of exchange. All of those things, except the constraint, are what makes fiat currency have value, so the argument is really whether the value of money should be subject to artificial manipulation. Hyperinflation has never occurred with a gold backed currency, it has with fiat currencies. So much for your claim that fiat currency holds it's real price better than gold.
If you wish to continue the discussion, drop the condescending attitude.
" its value can literally double (or fall in half) in the space of 1 calendar year, it'd make business wildly unpredictable. (Just imagine... that mortgage you got denominated in gold? One year later you owe twice the value of the house.) "
You're unclear on the concept. You're apparently referencing getting a loan to purchase that house without saying as much. The value of the house doesn't change because you owe gold - you still owe the same amount of gold you agreed to. When you say the value of the house changes, what you really mean is that the exchange rate between fiat currency and gold has changed. If it takes more fiat currency to exchange for the gold you owe, then it's not the value of gold which has gone up, but that the fiat currency has been devalued, which means it is not a good store of value.
Your whole argument is based on gold not as money, but as an asset valued in fiat currency. The amount of gold is quite stable and not subject to artificial manipulation. It's the manipulation of fiat currencies which causes the exchange rate to change.
"special operations types are highly capable and have proven it ... the sub ran aground ... recon team executed the sailors ... Most of the recon team was killed..."
"Highly capable" doesn't mean what you think it means.
"the thermal exhaust port that led directly to the reactor core."
Are you trolling, or just stupid?
"it's poorly designed"
Nope. It's designed to trip on when a sudden and significant overload is detected. Whether that's from a humorous bird dropping, or a more serious cause doesn't really matter - it detected a significant anomaly and took safe action. The system is reacting to measurements/inputs, not causes.
And, it's not simply "bird shit from above" as you so blithely put it, it was a "streamer" from a large bird, as mentioned in the summary. That's a continuous stream, which to a high voltage circuit is little different than a wire shorting two conductors.
Oh, just to show how common these things are, look here. "...623 power disruptions caused by squirrels, 214 by birds, 53 by raccoons, one by a Hannah Montana balloon, and a handful of other incidents caused by everything from snakes to slugs."
Seems like things worked as they should, if anything with an error on the side of safety. In a similar vein, power substations often shut down because squirrels short out the lines, tripping safety systems.
Where's the news in things working as they should?
It works for the federal government (GSA grades), they don't have any trouble attracting good candidat... oh, never mind.
A person or corporation can be compelled to testify about facts they know about. That's quite different than compelling speech which creates new facts.
"Concorde operated profitably for quite some time...government footed the bill for Concorde..."
So by "operated profitably," you mean it didn't operate profitably, it just pushed development costs onto European taxpayers.
(Why is it that people think that anything paid for by government somehow comes without a cost?)
...and what sort of fuel economy will it get?
Boeing failed with the SST, due to anticipated fuel costs not meeting market needs. Similarly with the Concorde, which couldn't operate profitably.
Sure, there are some rich folk who would pay for short flight times, but the mass market is price conscious. The problem with supersonic flight is not sonic booms, but efficiency.
Finally, why is NASA wasting taxpayer money designing passenger aircraft for the civilian market?