You can't forge the IP address easily. Not unless you've already owned all the routers between you and their Live! servers. And if that was the case, why not just own the servers and be done with it?
And you also assume that they won't take legal action against someone who is distrupting thousands or millions of people from enjoying a service they are paying for.
Once they inspect the source IP and simply reverse the transactions that occured within the past few hours. You'll likely end up removing everyone who is on your local ISP from using Live! than anything else.
I've found Mozilla more universal.
on
PINE Releases 4.50
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Than something like an SSH client.
At the local university and work, the more IMAP client connects the same as my IMAP clients at home do to my mail spool. I consider it a hack to do it via SSH, since SSH was designed for interactive login sessions. In many cases, most of the people for whom I provide email do not have an actual UNIX account on my system. That is why it is a hack: it requires extra accounts and other potentially dangerous settings (like allowing logins via password, instead of private key) to allow remote SSH use from anywhere. I'd much rather people trashed the live copy of my mail spool than my home dir, since it's a lot easier to backup and restore my mail spool.
"managed to change the serial number and MAC address of the xbox. After the change they managed to get onto Xbox Live (with mod-chip disabled) with a previously banned xbox..."
It's not really surprising that changing the only 2 identity-linked features on a piece of hardware would let you get past their blacklist.
What you should be asking yourself is: is it moral for you to go online, with your modchip, and screw over people who want to play online without dealing with cheaters? Is it? I don't think so.
Or slightly better. Microsoft onsite service or other 24/7 support options for Microsoft products likely is more expensive than a RedHat service contract, RHCE, or something else due to the lack of competition.
"115 Kilobytes / 60 seconds = 1.91 kilobytes a second..."
So if your calculations are correct, you can pay for the equivalent of having your 56k modem saturated a little under half of the time. Yet you pay double what an "unlimited" dial-up ISP would give you the account for. Where does that extra money go? I don't think a short-term speed boost for the really low amount of data you move is really worth that.
Because most people won't lift a finger when someone says "theoretical" or "possible" or "probable" -- but watch those deadlines jump up when you have an actual break in!
Because insurance companies don't require an authorized audit of computer security (yet), most places are wide-open. Think of this as the example of how to start fires, and why the government should have laws about the fire protection that public theatres (ecommerce sites) should have. Most companies are happy to let a room full of patrons burn to death -- that's why we need examples and government intervention. Besides, I'd rather that fellows like this release what they've been working on, so I know what to look out for, and can apply their methods against my systems at leisure in order to find problems and address them.
SirSlud was stating that asking the original provider (Microsoft) for features and maintenance was akin to the US Military having Boeing service all their planes. This was a somewhat reasonable premise, as the US Military would need to service their vehicles sometimes.
S/He then ranted on about how s/he could make a better OS, spouting off a rather good NiH quote: "Why the hell should I be forced into forking over more cash when I can just do the goddamn work myself."
This is why I stated that if the value (time, money, etc) of producing an OS was indeed greater than the value of buying a prepackaged OS, SirSlud would've already made one. I think went on to explain the cost/value relationships in software. I think you may be replying to a different thread entirely.
"Thats just plain bullshit. This _why_ we have legal protection from copying ideas (or a certain level of protection, which is what this is all about.)"
I was saying that because the parent poster said: "WHY do we support the abject protection of intellectual 'property' in order to keep the market functioning when that goal of protection can be used to tamper with market forces?"
Note how we both agree that protection of ideas for people in order to make money off of these ideas is good (to do otherwise would stiffle the production of new ideas).
"Nearly all the Xbox and PS/2 games in the world don't hold up to a single quality [sic]PC game.
Compare: "Nearly all the PC games is the world don't hold up to a single, high-quality console game."
Yes, 90% of anything is crap, and that crap won't compare to the best of the best. JSRF sure kicks the ass of Daikatana, just like Half-Life kicks the ass of Azurik.
If you're going to troll, at least try and be good at it.
"I just don't like being reminded of the fact that I usually end up playing on a team with a bunch of infantile 15-year-olds who think 'cock-knocker' is a scathing epithet."
Typed or spoken, stupid people are stupid:) I prefer voice because I can take the headset off and not listen to them, or pretend like I'm playing against really random AIs. For those situations where, previously, I would've had to use a keyboard, it's supperior. Otherwise it's the same dumbness if you are playing vs. dumb people.
I do like the integration service, because it lets me track my friends and stats vs. the world at large in games. A very similar thing happened with public Quake 2 servers, in that a few services existed that tracked poeple's records. I don't mind it.
" We'll see what happens when they start charging full price/year. They haven't announced what that price is yet, and the XBox Live! service is very suspect in terms of value until they do."
Now that is a very good point. I noticed how they studiously avoided mentioning how much renewals would cost, stating only that you needed to cancel the account before the year was up to avoid the "decided upon renewal fee":-|
"Xbox Live is doing better than expected, but the total numbers are pretty intimidating for MS. Last I checked (2 weeks ago), the score is:
- approximately 8 million GameCubes - approximately 10 million XBoxen - approximately 52 million PlayStation 2s
By those numbers, it's safe to say Sony has wrapped up this round, if you're looking for a 'winner'. "
I thought I'd highlight your comment about the Xbox Live! There are 10 million potential customers who spend 50$ USD and get it all working out of the box for one year. Everything is tracked, you have a friends list, and they even include VoIP for you to chat. I'm even tempted to look in to Xbox Live! without any games as a VoIP solution for keeping up with distant relatives, since it's so cheap and easy! How many PS2 online games support voice chat? Right, SOCOM.
You may be asking yourself why they expect to sell so few. To most people, the PS2 is just a DVD player that also plays their legacy PS1 games.
Of the 10 million potential Xbox Live! customers, quite a few million of which will probably go for the easy-to-use service, vs. the 400,000 PS2 people. Besides, if you've ever gamed online for a long time, you know that to get a continued quality service, you need to put money in to it. Myth2's public servers went away because Bungie never received money for it, so did a lot of the "free" online service parts of the Dreamcast games. I'm confident that as long as Xbox Live! gets money, the servers will be there. I don't feel the same way about Sony or Nintendo's (lack of) plans.
I have a very large collection of equipment, including 7 distinct console types (the actual number of gaming systems is close to 12 or so, but I'm going for unique types, so I don't count GBC and GB, or both Dreamcasts). A lot of my games are Dreamcast games (I have about 40 or 50 in that collection), plus the 2 consoles (1 for front room, 1 for bedroom.. I love the VGA pack).
Have I been out in the cold? No! I was able (and can still) to buy tons of games that kick ass at firesale prices. Jet Grind Radio for the DC was 15$ CDN new at EB. That's 8$ USD! You don't get that kind of value often. That, and the fact that a greater ratio of the games were FUN, is why it's the largest collection of all of my game collections.
I am most certainly not in the cold!
What games do I own for my GameCube? Nintendo first-party ones that kick ass (as Nintendo always has), Capcom's Resident Evil series (which I fell in love with), and Sega games (Monkey Ball, etc). What games do I have for my Xbox? Sega games (JSRF, Sega GT, Shenmue 2, etc), and the odd non-Sega one (Munch, since it was cheap; Mech Assault, for Xbox Live!). As this one fellow I know says, the Xbox has the spirit of the Dreamcast. I bought the Xbox on the strenth of the 3 Sega games listed above. Everything else is cake, like PSO with voice support coming in 2003 for the Xbox.
As to Sony: how many games do I have for my PSX? A handful. I bought some of the MegaMan games (I loved the series on the NES, GB, and SNES), and a couple of RPGs that disapoint (nobody's matched FF3's story yet). I have a similar small collection for the TG16, a much less "popular" console:) The PSX and PS2 were only popular because of shovelware. I can count the number of PS2 games I'm interested in and want to play on with the same amount of fingers I need to count the N64 games I'm interested in!
Nintendo and Sega have are a couple of the companies that have the most experience in game making, and they are the ones who I regularly give money to. I think you'll find that most professional gamers (in that they prefer it to other forms of entertainment, and spend their time and money there to the exclusion of other pursuits) share the same preference that I do.
Consoles don't lose money, except for a small period right at the start. Economies of scale kick in, allowing the games to make up early console losses. Over a recuring 6 to 8 month period, technology advances reduce the cost of producing the console. Sony sells PS2s for $200 USD, but they produce them for far less than that. They're currently on their 7th internal revision, and have integrated many I/O, sound, and video chips into once larger chip (think back to when VLSI came into vogue with PC motherboards back in the early 1990s).
So while early products may be sold at a bit of a loss, these loss periods are short-lived as long as the console maker merely waits a while.
"Why the hell should I be forced into forking over more cash when I can just do the goddamn work myself."
This breaks your entire rant right there. If you were getting more value for doing the work yourself, you would've already chosen that path. By saying that the money spent is a smaller cost than the personal time needed to master the concepts and develop the software, you are making an economic decision. The type that drives forward the economy. Why eat out when you can cook at home? Why buy carrots from a store when you can grow them yourself?
You have to specialize at some point, otherwise you'll end up being a person who is ok or decent at many menial tasks, while not really enjoying the benefits modern society has to offer. If you're whinning about how expensive something is when you can do it yourself, you're only trying to distract us from the fact that you haven't done it yourself! Actions do speak louder than whines.
Before you whine about trust, you should understand the economic underpinnings of these decisions. Since software is digital, the cost is all in the creation phase. You should tell your government to look in to escrow software development. Have a fixed dollar value attached to projects + the condition that it be GPLed upon release, then drum up the funding for it. Some company wanting to make money will invest time in it to reap the money returns, and the government gets software that it can again set contracts on ("we now need to to collate documents. We'll give $4,000 to anyone who gives us this feature").
You could take the alternate route that customers enter in to a limited-trust scenario. Complete access to source code, provided they do not provide it to anyone else. This lets clients pick over everything, while keeping the accountability that would allow a traditional software company to continue to sell the software + support to other people until the escrow method becomes more popular.
If today's software companies were to just give away everything as you state, they'd die. When you develop some great algorithm that suites a problem, you've done the work. When someone else comes along and copies it, you have no way of recouping the cost of the work because the copy cost is 0. Without some sort of escrowed payment system and trusted-client relationship for these innovations, software development would mostly grind to a halt.
"More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler that would put in a back-door whenever it noticed itself compiling a common bit of Unix login code,"
The point still remains that you can't trust code unless you can personally verify it at any level, because the moment you give any important code trust, the code can potentially use that as a way of subverting the entire system.
"Filtering anything is not the right thing for them to be doing."
Like hell they shouldn't!
They should block incoming traffic based on blacklist rules. There is no reason anything anywhere should be sending incoming traffic to SUNRPC or NetBIOS ports! None!!! I'm sure we can agree on not blocking ports above 1024, because those are dynamically assigned, but WELL KNOWN services under 1024 have every reason to be blocked, because they are WELL ABUSED services!
The internet is a commons. If any one system is insecure, it can be used to bash other systems -- everyone loses security because of one screwup. There should be laws against it the same way there are laws against throwing toxic waste into rivers.
What can ISPs do to be proactive about things like this once laws are in place? Well, they can block known traffic patterns that match a black-list of disabled traffic patterns (such as FIN scanning). That's not something you'll have a problem with, because you won't be FIN scanning. And your machine is less likely broken in to by someone who might be FIN scanning because commonly insecure services are filtered at the ISP!
AOL's not about to blast some AOLer off of a connection because my machine says it's being attacked by it. Why shouldn't my ISP just drop the packets at their location, rather than wasting bandwidth I could be using?
Filtering makes a lot of sense. Besides, if you're a consumer interent person, how likely are you to be wanting to run a webserver? Joe Sixpack sure doesn't want to be accidently running IIS's latest worm, so they block it. If you want to host a website, you'll probably talk to them about a different connection package, or go to a different ISP where such a package exists. But that's not a technical problem, that's a social/business problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd like to see you do it.
I know that on my end, all my machines have very strict rules about packets and IPs, as well as verification of them (as well as syn cookies).
I would still argue that allowing remote logins of any sort soley for mail reading is analagous to using a machine gun to kill flies :)
You probably mean over SSL or over an SSH forwarded port (which looks exactly the same as a normal local listener port to the client).
You can't forge the IP address easily. Not unless you've already owned all the routers between you and their Live! servers. And if that was the case, why not just own the servers and be done with it?
And you also assume that they won't take legal action against someone who is distrupting thousands or millions of people from enjoying a service they are paying for.
Once they inspect the source IP and simply reverse the transactions that occured within the past few hours. You'll likely end up removing everyone who is on your local ISP from using Live! than anything else.
Than something like an SSH client.
At the local university and work, the more IMAP client connects the same as my IMAP clients at home do to my mail spool. I consider it a hack to do it via SSH, since SSH was designed for interactive login sessions. In many cases, most of the people for whom I provide email do not have an actual UNIX account on my system. That is why it is a hack: it requires extra accounts and other potentially dangerous settings (like allowing logins via password, instead of private key) to allow remote SSH use from anywhere. I'd much rather people trashed the live copy of my mail spool than my home dir, since it's a lot easier to backup and restore my mail spool.
"managed to change the serial number and MAC address of the xbox. After the change they managed to get onto Xbox Live (with mod-chip disabled) with a previously banned xbox ..."
It's not really surprising that changing the only 2 identity-linked features on a piece of hardware would let you get past their blacklist.
What you should be asking yourself is: is it moral for you to go online, with your modchip, and screw over people who want to play online without dealing with cheaters? Is it? I don't think so.
"The one big reason is that I can SSH to my box from anywhere and get my mail."
Which is such an ugly hack, compared to IMAP over SSL. IMAP exists. Non-shitty clients exist (Mozilla). Use it!
Or slightly better. Microsoft onsite service or other 24/7 support options for Microsoft products likely is more expensive than a RedHat service contract, RHCE, or something else due to the lack of competition.
"115 Kilobytes / 60 seconds = 1.91 kilobytes a second..."
So if your calculations are correct, you can pay for the equivalent of having your 56k modem saturated a little under half of the time. Yet you pay double what an "unlimited" dial-up ISP would give you the account for. Where does that extra money go? I don't think a short-term speed boost for the really low amount of data you move is really worth that.
This is not a repeat! The Escher works are newly added in October.
Go read the original story -- it's about unrelated works.
Because most people won't lift a finger when someone says "theoretical" or "possible" or "probable" -- but watch those deadlines jump up when you have an actual break in!
Because insurance companies don't require an authorized audit of computer security (yet), most places are wide-open. Think of this as the example of how to start fires, and why the government should have laws about the fire protection that public theatres (ecommerce sites) should have. Most companies are happy to let a room full of patrons burn to death -- that's why we need examples and government intervention. Besides, I'd rather that fellows like this release what they've been working on, so I know what to look out for, and can apply their methods against my systems at leisure in order to find problems and address them.
Here are some ASCII diagrams:
:)
Case/motherboard:
TOP
] AGP
] PCI
] PCI
] PCI
BOTTOM
nVidia card:
TOP
]======
]--/
BOTTOM
Note how the ==== card can sit in the AGP slot while the --/ cooling fan sits over the adjacent PCI slot.
Seriously, after playing so much Tetris, how could you screw this up?
SirSlud was stating that asking the original provider (Microsoft) for features and maintenance was akin to the US Military having Boeing service all their planes. This was a somewhat reasonable premise, as the US Military would need to service their vehicles sometimes.
S/He then ranted on about how s/he could make a better OS, spouting off a rather good NiH quote: "Why the hell should I be forced into forking over more cash when I can just do the goddamn work myself."
This is why I stated that if the value (time, money, etc) of producing an OS was indeed greater than the value of buying a prepackaged OS, SirSlud would've already made one. I think went on to explain the cost/value relationships in software. I think you may be replying to a different thread entirely.
"Thats just plain bullshit. This _why_ we have legal protection from copying ideas (or a certain level of protection, which is what this is all about.)"
I was saying that because the parent poster said: "WHY do we support the abject protection of intellectual 'property' in order to keep the market functioning when that goal of protection can be used to tamper with market forces?"
Note how we both agree that protection of ideas for people in order to make money off of these ideas is good (to do otherwise would stiffle the production of new ideas).
"Nearly all the Xbox and PS/2 games in the world don't hold up to a single quality [sic]PC game.
Compare: "Nearly all the PC games is the world don't hold up to a single, high-quality console game."
Yes, 90% of anything is crap, and that crap won't compare to the best of the best. JSRF sure kicks the ass of Daikatana, just like Half-Life kicks the ass of Azurik.
If you're going to troll, at least try and be good at it.
"I just don't like being reminded of the fact that I usually end up playing on a team with a bunch of infantile 15-year-olds who think 'cock-knocker' is a scathing epithet."
:) I prefer voice because I can take the headset off and not listen to them, or pretend like I'm playing against really random AIs. For those situations where, previously, I would've had to use a keyboard, it's supperior. Otherwise it's the same dumbness if you are playing vs. dumb people.
:-|
Typed or spoken, stupid people are stupid
I do like the integration service, because it lets me track my friends and stats vs. the world at large in games. A very similar thing happened with public Quake 2 servers, in that a few services existed that tracked poeple's records. I don't mind it.
" We'll see what happens when they start charging full price/year. They haven't announced what that price is yet, and the XBox Live! service is very suspect in terms of value until they do."
Now that is a very good point. I noticed how they studiously avoided mentioning how much renewals would cost, stating only that you needed to cancel the account before the year was up to avoid the "decided upon renewal fee"
" Xbox Live is doing better than expected, but the total numbers are pretty intimidating for MS. Last I checked (2 weeks ago), the score is:
- approximately 8 million GameCubes
- approximately 10 million XBoxen
- approximately 52 million PlayStation 2s
By those numbers, it's safe to say Sony has wrapped up this round, if you're looking for a 'winner'. "
I thought I'd highlight your comment about the Xbox Live! There are 10 million potential customers who spend 50$ USD and get it all working out of the box for one year. Everything is tracked, you have a friends list, and they even include VoIP for you to chat. I'm even tempted to look in to Xbox Live! without any games as a VoIP solution for keeping up with distant relatives, since it's so cheap and easy! How many PS2 online games support voice chat? Right, SOCOM.
How many of those 52 million PS2s will support online play? Let's see... " Sony, too, is selling add-on hardware to gamers who want to play online; a spokeswoman said the company hopes to sell 400,000 adapters this year. "
You may be asking yourself why they expect to sell so few. To most people, the PS2 is just a DVD player that also plays their legacy PS1 games.
Of the 10 million potential Xbox Live! customers, quite a few million of which will probably go for the easy-to-use service, vs. the 400,000 PS2 people. Besides, if you've ever gamed online for a long time, you know that to get a continued quality service, you need to put money in to it. Myth2's public servers went away because Bungie never received money for it, so did a lot of the "free" online service parts of the Dreamcast games. I'm confident that as long as Xbox Live! gets money, the servers will be there. I don't feel the same way about Sony or Nintendo's (lack of) plans.
I have a very large collection of equipment, including 7 distinct console types (the actual number of gaming systems is close to 12 or so, but I'm going for unique types, so I don't count GBC and GB, or both Dreamcasts). A lot of my games are Dreamcast games (I have about 40 or 50 in that collection), plus the 2 consoles (1 for front room, 1 for bedroom.. I love the VGA pack).
:) The PSX and PS2 were only popular because of shovelware. I can count the number of PS2 games I'm interested in and want to play on with the same amount of fingers I need to count the N64 games I'm interested in!
Have I been out in the cold? No! I was able (and can still) to buy tons of games that kick ass at firesale prices. Jet Grind Radio for the DC was 15$ CDN new at EB. That's 8$ USD! You don't get that kind of value often. That, and the fact that a greater ratio of the games were FUN, is why it's the largest collection of all of my game collections.
I am most certainly not in the cold!
What games do I own for my GameCube? Nintendo first-party ones that kick ass (as Nintendo always has), Capcom's Resident Evil series (which I fell in love with), and Sega games (Monkey Ball, etc). What games do I have for my Xbox? Sega games (JSRF, Sega GT, Shenmue 2, etc), and the odd non-Sega one (Munch, since it was cheap; Mech Assault, for Xbox Live!). As this one fellow I know says, the Xbox has the spirit of the Dreamcast. I bought the Xbox on the strenth of the 3 Sega games listed above. Everything else is cake, like PSO with voice support coming in 2003 for the Xbox.
As to Sony: how many games do I have for my PSX? A handful. I bought some of the MegaMan games (I loved the series on the NES, GB, and SNES), and a couple of RPGs that disapoint (nobody's matched FF3's story yet). I have a similar small collection for the TG16, a much less "popular" console
Nintendo and Sega have are a couple of the companies that have the most experience in game making, and they are the ones who I regularly give money to. I think you'll find that most professional gamers (in that they prefer it to other forms of entertainment, and spend their time and money there to the exclusion of other pursuits) share the same preference that I do.
Consoles don't lose money, except for a small period right at the start. Economies of scale kick in, allowing the games to make up early console losses. Over a recuring 6 to 8 month period, technology advances reduce the cost of producing the console. Sony sells PS2s for $200 USD, but they produce them for far less than that. They're currently on their 7th internal revision, and have integrated many I/O, sound, and video chips into once larger chip (think back to when VLSI came into vogue with PC motherboards back in the early 1990s).
So while early products may be sold at a bit of a loss, these loss periods are short-lived as long as the console maker merely waits a while.
"Why the hell should I be forced into forking over more cash when I can just do the goddamn work myself."
This breaks your entire rant right there. If you were getting more value for doing the work yourself, you would've already chosen that path. By saying that the money spent is a smaller cost than the personal time needed to master the concepts and develop the software, you are making an economic decision. The type that drives forward the economy. Why eat out when you can cook at home? Why buy carrots from a store when you can grow them yourself?
You have to specialize at some point, otherwise you'll end up being a person who is ok or decent at many menial tasks, while not really enjoying the benefits modern society has to offer. If you're whinning about how expensive something is when you can do it yourself, you're only trying to distract us from the fact that you haven't done it yourself! Actions do speak louder than whines.
Before you whine about trust, you should understand the economic underpinnings of these decisions. Since software is digital, the cost is all in the creation phase. You should tell your government to look in to escrow software development. Have a fixed dollar value attached to projects + the condition that it be GPLed upon release, then drum up the funding for it. Some company wanting to make money will invest time in it to reap the money returns, and the government gets software that it can again set contracts on ("we now need to to collate documents. We'll give $4,000 to anyone who gives us this feature").
You could take the alternate route that customers enter in to a limited-trust scenario. Complete access to source code, provided they do not provide it to anyone else. This lets clients pick over everything, while keeping the accountability that would allow a traditional software company to continue to sell the software + support to other people until the escrow method becomes more popular.
If today's software companies were to just give away everything as you state, they'd die. When you develop some great algorithm that suites a problem, you've done the work. When someone else comes along and copies it, you have no way of recouping the cost of the work because the copy cost is 0. Without some sort of escrowed payment system and trusted-client relationship for these innovations, software development would mostly grind to a halt.
"More famously, there was a version of a very popular C compiler that would put in a back-door whenever it noticed itself compiling a common bit of Unix login code,"
Nope. This was a theoretical attack presented by Ken Thompson. It was never out in the wild, to the best of anyone's knowledge.
The point still remains that you can't trust code unless you can personally verify it at any level, because the moment you give any important code trust, the code can potentially use that as a way of subverting the entire system.
"1) Good! You got yr packet!"
It seems like your keyboard keeps dropping packets. Could we have a repost of this comment?
"Filtering anything is not the right thing for them to be doing."
Like hell they shouldn't!
They should block incoming traffic based on blacklist rules. There is no reason anything anywhere should be sending incoming traffic to SUNRPC or NetBIOS ports! None!!! I'm sure we can agree on not blocking ports above 1024, because those are dynamically assigned, but WELL KNOWN services under 1024 have every reason to be blocked, because they are WELL ABUSED services!
The internet is a commons. If any one system is insecure, it can be used to bash other systems -- everyone loses security because of one screwup. There should be laws against it the same way there are laws against throwing toxic waste into rivers.
What can ISPs do to be proactive about things like this once laws are in place? Well, they can block known traffic patterns that match a black-list of disabled traffic patterns (such as FIN scanning). That's not something you'll have a problem with, because you won't be FIN scanning. And your machine is less likely broken in to by someone who might be FIN scanning because commonly insecure services are filtered at the ISP!
AOL's not about to blast some AOLer off of a connection because my machine says it's being attacked by it. Why shouldn't my ISP just drop the packets at their location, rather than wasting bandwidth I could be using?
Filtering makes a lot of sense. Besides, if you're a consumer interent person, how likely are you to be wanting to run a webserver? Joe Sixpack sure doesn't want to be accidently running IIS's latest worm, so they block it. If you want to host a website, you'll probably talk to them about a different connection package, or go to a different ISP where such a package exists. But that's not a technical problem, that's a social/business problem.
"Thermos, sandwiches, corn-plasters, telephone money, dandruff brush, animal footprint chart and one triple-thick condom! You never know!"