Re:is there any other way to prevent crowd dispers
on
Revisiting DIY HERF Guns
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In short: Yes, there are anti-democratic forces at play, and yet we are still our own worst enemies.
Yes. And the worst offender is Rupert Murdoch.
Look at the lengths this man will go to in order to have control of the media, he took American citizenship so he could buy a TV station in the country. Now, you have Fox News.
To Mr Murdoch it is about power. His control over media - on a near-global scale - makes politicians his playthings. If you are suspicious of government, then perhaps you should not be ignoring the man behind the curtain. Nobody fucking elected him.
Uh, no. You could have 25% of the entire voting population support you - you would still get zero representation. That's what first past the post means.
Several other European countries have a proportional representation system. In that you can still get seats/representation without actually outright winning a district or constituency.
1) Why should the bank be held responsible for something that is clearly the customer's responsibility? I.e. securing their fucking computer?
2) Maybe this will encourage folks to keep their computers locked down.
Mind you, I think that the bank should bend over backwards to help catch the bad guys. However, they cannot and should not be expected to police their client's computers...and likewise expecting them to pony up for something they can't prevent is also unfair.
The real enemy in this case, as usual, is the crook that did the hacking in the first place.
They can prevent it - or at least make it orders of magnitude more difficult for would-be thieves.
It's a really simple security principle, something you know, and something you have.
The what you know bit is what we're all used to, the username and password.
The what you have is some physical device that generates an additional security key - or a digital signature for your transaction. What I got from ING was a DigiPass. You need to know a five digit PIN to use the device, at login you push the "I" button, are prompted for the PIN, and it generates a login key. To finalise a transaction, the website gives you a challenge code, you push the "S" button, enter the PIN and the challenge code, the DigiPass signs it, and you enter the generated signature.
I suppose there may be some way to mount a man-in-the-middle attack on this, but you'd also have to get a valid SSL cert or compromise the user's PC so badly that the browser stopped giving cert errors.
I'm concerned of the potential that malware has to disrupt civilian systems from stuff like waste treatment all the way to energy facilities. The same vulnerabilities that allow your bank creds to be pwned are the same one that could be used to disrupt systems we need for heat or clean water. There neds to be stiffer penalties for neglecting to fix security problems.
Er, no. The fucktards that connect water, power, or sewage systems to the public Internet need to be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot in the back of the head.
If someone hasn't been convicted of breaking a law there can be no punishment. If they had anything of substance against someone they wouldn't be pursuing a three strikes law; they'd be in court. If the music industry doesn't want to follow the law but instead act on a hunch then I'd say the entirety of their limited monopoly should be done away with entirely. The law should not be used to intimidate; its purpose is to serve society not serve the greedy to the eclusion of all else.
You know, that "Innocent until proven guilty" idea sounds pretty good.
On the other hand, I have already weighed the evidence and I declare the mainstream music industry guilty of crimes against humanity. I have the proof - I lived through the eighties.
So, in the honest-to-goodness telephony market, there are a bunch of dodgy rural providers who rip you off when you call a number in their fiefdom. As is poorly explained in the summary and article, they're trying to maximise the number of calls to their numbers - by selling them to sex line and chatroom operators and sharing the connection revenue.
AT&T and a load of other telcos have complained about this as they are hoisted by their own petard (free calls to landlines), and the net neutrality principle. The FCC are being painfully slow in sorting this out and giving the rural providers a good bitchslap.
I don't blame Google for not routing to these numbers, there are clearly defined prefixes for premium rate services and this is just a dodge to get round that. Eventually the loophole will be closed.
When I studied English at school I had an interesting time of it. I generally got on well with the teachers, got excellent marks for my in-class work, and, unlike the vast majority of my peers, had no trouble with classics like Shakespeare.
Then I failed the O-grade English exam everyone sits at 16. I was baffled. My teachers were baffled. They wrote it off as an anomaly and filed an appeal against my result using my classwork and the preliminary exam I'd taken earlier. I was also assured that even if I did not get the appeal, I would be allowed to study for and sit the Higher exam.
I did just that, and got an excellent grade in the Higher exam. My teachers were disappointed that I chose not to study English further, but I was much more interested in my science and mathematics courses.
It was when I had my first job in IT that I discovered that my "excellent English" was lacking in a number of respects. My first boss was an old ex-IBM guy who'd been in in the industry since punched cards were commonplace. My repeated casual faults were knocked out of me, and for specifications and proposals I learned to be far more concise.
Nowadays I am used to seeing screeds of specifications that make far, far worse mistakes than I used to. The worst ones are those that come from India. Senior management look at the lengthy buzzword-compliant nonsense and seem to think, "good, we saved lots of money." I just shake my head. You can tell a mile away which projects will be a complete failure - because it is painfully apparent in the specifications who understands the actual requirements, or more accurately who doesn't.
I saw a consumer TV piece that really brought this home to me. The reporter asked a number of professors to provide sample assignments they would generally use with undergraduates. These questions were then submitted to a number of websites that offer to have Indian graduates write the paper for you. Every single returned paper was given a failing mark by the professors.
English may be an official language in India, but in so many cases they just write to meet certain criteria with a grammar check using Microsoft Office.
I ROFLd very hard at this. Now who hasn't heard of something like this happening or been in a work place where this has happend? Of all the security measures companies fret over these days they fail to recognise the threat of abject stupidity.
Many moons ago, I was told a tale about sending out mass mailings, not this "slip of the mouse" email stuff.
The bank's marketing and finance guys have come up with this glossy brochure of stuff for their top customers, based on something like highest 5% balance holders. There's a letter drafted to accompany the brochure, it just remains to do the little personalising touches for the final run.
Someone forgets to replace the output placeholder with the salutation generation program that'll even spew out "Dear Sir Whimsey-Porpoise".
The final letters are printed, enveloped, and mailed. The salutation from the placeholder piece of code? "Dear Rich Bastard,".
I want Linux to really be ready for the home desktop of the average user, but it isn't. I don't think we should be kidding ourselves and making ads with false promises like these.
Sorry, that's a crock of shit. Linux is ready for the desktop of the average user. The issue is that they should not be required to install it or do anything beyond okaying the installation of a variety of security updates to the software they use.
I've set quite a few people up with Ubuntu in the past year or so, compared with previously saying "don't do Linux". Your average user now has a real set of expectations from a computer. Linux can meet these needs and expectations, and there is a huge reduction in support headaches when you've convinced people only to install stuff made for their distribution and in a searchable repository.
Dealing with getting real people to use Linux is having someone with a clue set up support for Flash, DVDs, and stuff like that. The one I found hilarious was a friend who's used Windows for years - he asked what bittorrent client you could get for Linux. When I told him Ubuntu installed one by default, well, his jaw hit the floor.
but the problem is not the one the police chief is making it out to be.
The problem is that it is utter waste-of-space career political figures such as him don't like criticism. There are laws and processes he can follow to make a case for someone's identity - if he can show reasonable grounds that they have committed libel or deliberate defamation.
He says, "There ought to be a law against people saying nasty things about me."
I say, "Get lost you ignorant pigfucker. Don't go into politics if you can't stand being publicly criticised. Oh, and expect to have to pay for legal advice before you make yourself look like a rube hick crying to the press about what your critics say."
Honestly. If they're not litigious bastards, they want the laws changed or fabricated out of fictional whole-cloth to engineer the political landscape most suited to their aims. Constitutional protections are just an inconvenience.
Or some way to break the encryption, eg. they've got the boss of Verisign in their back pocket.
What possible use would having the boss of Verisign in their back pocket be?
Verisign fulfills a 'trust provider' function by signing people's website certificates. The only use for that would be to have a clean certificate for, say, a typosquatting site.
if firefox is shielded from these export restrictions because of first amendment protection wouldn't any open source implementation of strong encryption also be protected? wouldn't this make those export restrictions very nearly mute?
Don't people remember what happened with Phil Zimmerman over PGP?
The munitions classification on encryption software was used against him for posting the PGP source code on Usenet. They really, really wanted to nail him to the wall over that one.
There was a certain irony in the restrictions on exporting crypto software deemed 'munitions'. You could take the source, publish it as a book in an OCR font (with the page numbers between comment delimiters), and export it anywhere in the world.
I wouldn't so much respond with "Who cares?", as with "Get your ideology out of here!".
Unless you are actually studying CS or IT, then Linux versus Windows versus OS-X is irrelevant.
Regardless of your own favourite platform, an institute of higher learning has to deal with reality. Sorry to break it to you, but that means that they are not going to invest in staff time and training on the off-chance someone wants to use Hanna Montana Linux. They're going to provide the computing resources they believe you need for your time there, with the lowest level of expenditure they can get away with.
That means you're on your own for Linux support. There might be a local user group, or the odd Linux user in the IT department, but that's it.
You're wasting your time asking about Linux, particularly asking the tour guide who's doing this for brownie points with future sales or marketing employers. Ask the college IT department, and *don't* ask about Linux, ask about which standards and protocols they use. Then you can decide if your Linux laptop is compatible with the college you'd like to go to.
Slashdot Mirror
In short: Yes, there are anti-democratic forces at play, and yet we are still our own worst enemies.
Yes. And the worst offender is Rupert Murdoch.
Look at the lengths this man will go to in order to have control of the media, he took American citizenship so he could buy a TV station in the country. Now, you have Fox News.
To Mr Murdoch it is about power. His control over media - on a near-global scale - makes politicians his playthings. If you are suspicious of government, then perhaps you should not be ignoring the man behind the curtain. Nobody fucking elected him.
Uh, no. You could have 25% of the entire voting population support you - you would still get zero representation. That's what first past the post means.
Several other European countries have a proportional representation system. In that you can still get seats/representation without actually outright winning a district or constituency.
My two cents
1) Why should the bank be held responsible for something that is clearly the customer's responsibility? I.e. securing their fucking computer?
2) Maybe this will encourage folks to keep their computers locked down.
Mind you, I think that the bank should bend over backwards to help catch the bad guys. However, they cannot and should not be expected to police their client's computers...and likewise expecting them to pony up for something they can't prevent is also unfair.
The real enemy in this case, as usual, is the crook that did the hacking in the first place.
They can prevent it - or at least make it orders of magnitude more difficult for would-be thieves.
It's a really simple security principle, something you know , and something you have .
The what you know bit is what we're all used to, the username and password.
The what you have is some physical device that generates an additional security key - or a digital signature for your transaction. What I got from ING was a DigiPass. You need to know a five digit PIN to use the device, at login you push the "I" button, are prompted for the PIN, and it generates a login key. To finalise a transaction, the website gives you a challenge code, you push the "S" button, enter the PIN and the challenge code, the DigiPass signs it, and you enter the generated signature.
I suppose there may be some way to mount a man-in-the-middle attack on this, but you'd also have to get a valid SSL cert or compromise the user's PC so badly that the browser stopped giving cert errors.
I'm concerned of the potential that malware has to disrupt civilian systems from stuff like waste treatment all the way to energy facilities. The same vulnerabilities that allow your bank creds to be pwned are the same one that could be used to disrupt systems we need for heat or clean water. There neds to be stiffer penalties for neglecting to fix security problems.
Er, no. The fucktards that connect water, power, or sewage systems to the public Internet need to be taken out behind the chemical sheds and shot in the back of the head.
If someone hasn't been convicted of breaking a law there can be no punishment. If they had anything of substance against someone they wouldn't be pursuing a three strikes law; they'd be in court. If the music industry doesn't want to follow the law but instead act on a hunch then I'd say the entirety of their limited monopoly should be done away with entirely. The law should not be used to intimidate; its purpose is to serve society not serve the greedy to the eclusion of all else.
You know, that "Innocent until proven guilty" idea sounds pretty good.
On the other hand, I have already weighed the evidence and I declare the mainstream music industry guilty of crimes against humanity. I have the proof - I lived through the eighties.
Marx Brothers did some real comic genius.
"I've had a wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
"I find television highly educational; whenever someone turns it on, I go and read a book."
to actually say what the hell the thing is in the summary without assuming everyone "just knows"?
Everyone would have been perfectly happy if they just came out and said, "yes, it will support streaming porn."
That's all we need to hear, right?
So, in the honest-to-goodness telephony market, there are a bunch of dodgy rural providers who rip you off when you call a number in their fiefdom. As is poorly explained in the summary and article, they're trying to maximise the number of calls to their numbers - by selling them to sex line and chatroom operators and sharing the connection revenue.
AT&T and a load of other telcos have complained about this as they are hoisted by their own petard (free calls to landlines), and the net neutrality principle. The FCC are being painfully slow in sorting this out and giving the rural providers a good bitchslap.
I don't blame Google for not routing to these numbers, there are clearly defined prefixes for premium rate services and this is just a dodge to get round that. Eventually the loophole will be closed.
When I studied English at school I had an interesting time of it. I generally got on well with the teachers, got excellent marks for my in-class work, and, unlike the vast majority of my peers, had no trouble with classics like Shakespeare.
Then I failed the O-grade English exam everyone sits at 16. I was baffled. My teachers were baffled. They wrote it off as an anomaly and filed an appeal against my result using my classwork and the preliminary exam I'd taken earlier. I was also assured that even if I did not get the appeal, I would be allowed to study for and sit the Higher exam.
I did just that, and got an excellent grade in the Higher exam. My teachers were disappointed that I chose not to study English further, but I was much more interested in my science and mathematics courses.
It was when I had my first job in IT that I discovered that my "excellent English" was lacking in a number of respects. My first boss was an old ex-IBM guy who'd been in in the industry since punched cards were commonplace. My repeated casual faults were knocked out of me, and for specifications and proposals I learned to be far more concise.
Nowadays I am used to seeing screeds of specifications that make far, far worse mistakes than I used to. The worst ones are those that come from India. Senior management look at the lengthy buzzword-compliant nonsense and seem to think, "good, we saved lots of money." I just shake my head. You can tell a mile away which projects will be a complete failure - because it is painfully apparent in the specifications who understands the actual requirements, or more accurately who doesn't.
I saw a consumer TV piece that really brought this home to me. The reporter asked a number of professors to provide sample assignments they would generally use with undergraduates. These questions were then submitted to a number of websites that offer to have Indian graduates write the paper for you. Every single returned paper was given a failing mark by the professors.
English may be an official language in India, but in so many cases they just write to meet certain criteria with a grammar check using Microsoft Office.
The correct quote is, "Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
I'll be thirsty after the long ride.
Really?
What they don't tell you is that the only reason there is water on the Moon is because Neil Armstrong needed a pee.
I ROFLd very hard at this. Now who hasn't heard of something like this happening or been in a work place where this has happend? Of all the security measures companies fret over these days they fail to recognise the threat of abject stupidity.
Many moons ago, I was told a tale about sending out mass mailings, not this "slip of the mouse" email stuff.
The bank's marketing and finance guys have come up with this glossy brochure of stuff for their top customers, based on something like highest 5% balance holders. There's a letter drafted to accompany the brochure, it just remains to do the little personalising touches for the final run.
Someone forgets to replace the output placeholder with the salutation generation program that'll even spew out "Dear Sir Whimsey-Porpoise".
The final letters are printed, enveloped, and mailed. The salutation from the placeholder piece of code? "Dear Rich Bastard,".
You can have any colour you like, so long as it's Beige
They've been working to make 'that damn colour' acceptable for decades.
But first they had to ban smoking everywhere so it doesn't go nicotine yellow in a few weeks.
The US is getting Britain's camera system and you get our Intellectual rights system... who came up with this new one?
Pick something the US and the Brits can agree on... Blame the French.
Learn what a monopoly is and you'll come off less like an ignorant fucktard Microsoft fanboi.
Uh, go drool elsewhere.
The gibberish you posted was a waste of electrons.
Just thought I'd tell you that rather than take advantage of the fact that Slashdot seems willing to let me moderate your response to my post.
I want Linux to really be ready for the home desktop of the average user, but it isn't. I don't think we should be kidding ourselves and making ads with false promises like these.
Sorry, that's a crock of shit. Linux is ready for the desktop of the average user. The issue is that they should not be required to install it or do anything beyond okaying the installation of a variety of security updates to the software they use.
I've set quite a few people up with Ubuntu in the past year or so, compared with previously saying "don't do Linux". Your average user now has a real set of expectations from a computer. Linux can meet these needs and expectations, and there is a huge reduction in support headaches when you've convinced people only to install stuff made for their distribution and in a searchable repository.
Dealing with getting real people to use Linux is having someone with a clue set up support for Flash, DVDs, and stuff like that. The one I found hilarious was a friend who's used Windows for years - he asked what bittorrent client you could get for Linux. When I told him Ubuntu installed one by default, well, his jaw hit the floor.
but the problem is not the one the police chief is making it out to be.
The problem is that it is utter waste-of-space career political figures such as him don't like criticism. There are laws and processes he can follow to make a case for someone's identity - if he can show reasonable grounds that they have committed libel or deliberate defamation.
He says, "There ought to be a law against people saying nasty things about me."
I say, "Get lost you ignorant pigfucker. Don't go into politics if you can't stand being publicly criticised. Oh, and expect to have to pay for legal advice before you make yourself look like a rube hick crying to the press about what your critics say."
Honestly. If they're not litigious bastards, they want the laws changed or fabricated out of fictional whole-cloth to engineer the political landscape most suited to their aims. Constitutional protections are just an inconvenience.
Or some way to break the encryption, eg. they've got the boss of Verisign in their back pocket.
What possible use would having the boss of Verisign in their back pocket be?
Verisign fulfills a 'trust provider' function by signing people's website certificates. The only use for that would be to have a clean certificate for, say, a typosquatting site.
if firefox is shielded from these export restrictions because of first amendment protection wouldn't any open source implementation of strong encryption also be protected? wouldn't this make those export restrictions very nearly mute?
Don't people remember what happened with Phil Zimmerman over PGP?
The munitions classification on encryption software was used against him for posting the PGP source code on Usenet. They really, really wanted to nail him to the wall over that one.
There was a certain irony in the restrictions on exporting crypto software deemed 'munitions'. You could take the source, publish it as a book in an OCR font (with the page numbers between comment delimiters), and export it anywhere in the world.
At least Fox leans to the center periodically.
On that basis, I would be fascinated to hear your description of the BBC, considering how outrageously right-wing Fox really, and consistently is.
In Belgium, many of the hospitals have most of their computers running Linux...
Unfortunately, it doesn't mean 'apt-get cure-for-cancer' works.
Yes, it is ideology if your choice of college or university is governed or significantly influenced by "Does it run Linux?"
Little girls are deceptive, manipulative, and just a tad bit sexual.
It's a goddamn lie! I swear it! They're all FBI agents!
I wouldn't so much respond with "Who cares?", as with "Get your ideology out of here!".
Unless you are actually studying CS or IT, then Linux versus Windows versus OS-X is irrelevant.
Regardless of your own favourite platform, an institute of higher learning has to deal with reality. Sorry to break it to you, but that means that they are not going to invest in staff time and training on the off-chance someone wants to use Hanna Montana Linux. They're going to provide the computing resources they believe you need for your time there, with the lowest level of expenditure they can get away with.
That means you're on your own for Linux support. There might be a local user group, or the odd Linux user in the IT department, but that's it.
You're wasting your time asking about Linux, particularly asking the tour guide who's doing this for brownie points with future sales or marketing employers. Ask the college IT department, and *don't* ask about Linux, ask about which standards and protocols they use. Then you can decide if your Linux laptop is compatible with the college you'd like to go to.