It's not like they're trying to tread on the FCC's toes and license the spectrum themselves, they're just trying to maintain a semblance of network security in a relatively open environment. You're not allowed to plug a WAP into your company's LAN, are you? Why should this be different? If somebody puts up an AP, but doesn't plug it into the network, then they're exercising their right to use unlicensed spectrum, just like they would by using a 2.4GHz wireless phone or a microwave oven. But the owner of a network has every right to set policy prohibiting rogue AP's on the LAN.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't WPA2 just the WiFi Alliance being stuborn about what to call 802.11i? I mean, WPA was just supposed to be 802.11i minus everything that required hardware upgrades. WPA2 is just 802.11i, only not a real standard, ooh boy!
We actually have a "Software Center" of site licensed software that all campus users have access to. Included in that is a network installer for Jaguar and Panther, so users can rebuild their Macs by just booting off a local server. It's pretty cool.
No, actually the fiber infrastructure went in before CAT-3 was even a standard. New buildings and those getting rewired for other reasons are getting fiber AND CAT-6, but they just couldn't justify the cost of replacing the existing infrastructure. It's served us well for 15 years.
Oh, and in buildings new enough to have a copper network infrastructure as well, the ethernet ports are connected to 10/100/1000 switches, so you can plug in whatever type of RJ-45 ethernet you like.
I don't know why this is news, though. We made/. when we went all gig, and we made/. when we announced free wireless through our 1600 acceess points on campus. But there's nothing new to report now.
I could build a backdoor on the server that [...] detects connection attempts to closed ports 1026,1027,1029,1034,1026,1044 and 1035 in that sequence within 5 seconds [...]
Then your secret handshake wouldn't exactly be very secret, now would it? Why not use something that actually would remain a secret. Something fairly cryptographically strong, for example. It could still run on an unrelated port, and manage access to other ports the same way, but wouldn't be (as) easily broken by restrictive firewalls, wouldn't be sniffable, and still has the added advantage of added security (though by no means a complete solution) without depending on any modification of whatever's listening on the port your restricting access to.
Yeah, until they yank the check out of reach, yell "Psyche!" and sue you into oblivion for IP infringement (it doesn't even matter what for, anymore, they'll think of something, and amazingly, it'll seem even more absurd than all their previous claims).
<sarcasm>
Quick, call the Patriot Act Police, some linux using terrorists wrote some code to ping that good God loving American company, The SCO Group! Abusing them with their own IP, the gall of it!!
</sarcasm>
"if you have to become evil to fight evil, why are you fighting it?"
Because you're evil, perhaps? Evil usually doesn't need much of a reason. At least, that's what I learned from the movies, so it must be true. Then again, that means it came from the MPAA, and they're evil.
And to add to the irony, they used a closed source web server (Netscape-FastTrack/2.01) back when they were on a "Caldera, Inc." owned netblock, and didn't actually switch to Apache until August of 2002. When did their litigation begin, again? It was early 2003, right? They started using other people's open source projects right before declaring open source the bane of the free market?
From their standpoint (assuming they believe their own BS, that is), Linux belongs to them. It's their IP, so running it wouldn't be hypocritical in the slightest.
So their hipocracy has repeatedly been pointed out in their claims of the GPL being an illegal economy killer while they use Samba3. But I'd never noticed it being pointed out that they're using Apache (not GPL, granted, but still an open source license nonetheless) for their web server, and as recently as December 12 (according to the Netcraft link in the story) have been running it on Linux. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but c'mon...
So I can understand how an editor might easily overlook a duplicate story, but a triplicate -- and so closely following the last instance -- suggests a lack of effort.
Could the editors employ some tools to help them watch for such slip-ups? Just logging the URL's previous stories have linked to, and warning if it sees them again would eliminate a number of the simple cases like this one (though there will be a number of false positives for links just pointing at a domain like cnet.com). But it's still a start, and could easily be refined to grow in accuracy over time.
Yeah, I know BO isn't the most legit "administrative tool". I'm just pointing out that the cDc claimed it to be. They were riding a wave of publicity surrounding it, and claimed it was legit. The cDc was a highly visible organization, they could very easily be held liable (like a virus author might) if it was deemed something purely for malicious use.
MS specifically disallowing it in the EULA gives them legal rights even if the tool is claimed to be for legitimate use.
Their real reason for doing this is more likely related to cDc's well known Back Orrifice.
It claimed to be a remote administration tool to compete with MS's Back Office, despite it's more common malicious use, and detection as a trojan app by most antivirus manufacturers.
I hope this subject doesn't turn into another on again, off again story that keeps reversing itself every other week, as Mir did.
Speaking of which? Isn't it supposed to come down sometime this month?
I can't believe nobody else is really seeing this. Read through their site (don't worry, there isn't much actual information...), it's all about *money*! It's about drawing in investors, it's about "free" publicity. It quotes on their main page about how ACM estimates the Deep Thought v. Kasparov match garnered publicity equivalent to ~$125m advertising dollars. Their main page's 2nd link is "Marketing Opportunity."
They have a flow chart for the project, and the biggest component is a bit *thick* arrow pointing at themselves labeled as '$', for crying out loud! Included in that flow chart is a *separate* company that will be doing the actual technical work.
Oh, and what's that company again? "RDD is a research, design and development company." I wonder, did they already have a company by that name, or did they have to think about it for a whole 30 seconds to come up with it? Oh wait, I forgot, these are management types, they probably spent a few weeks in meetings just to determine the consulting company to hire for suggestions.
And as Lish points out, even the semi technical parts are all fluff. If you'll notice, all of the pages where you might find technical information on this are the shortest pages on their site.
What about all of the other R&D going towards self driving cars? It's been going on for years. Every now & then you'll see some more about it in a Popular Science/Mechanics, Discover, and/or Scientific American. Self driving cars have been done countless times, they usually need something special in the road to keep track of and/or a human driver to follow. They mention they've already got positioning equipment all around the track, allowing them to position the car to within 1cm. Okay, that's a huge advantage over other self driving car projects, feasible only because it's in a closed track environment. But what about that other driver, that's still a huge feat to overcome, not to mention driving conditions and other "non-linear" elements. They don't address any of that. All they say is "this is what we want to do, imagine how much money it could bring in."
This site wasn't written for those interested in R&D, the advancement of robotics, or AI, or even F1 racing, this site was written to garner investor interest for a project that I don't think even they expect to be finished.
Until I see real evidence of ground breaking, well funded R&D, I consider this nothing more than a hoax, a deceptive ploy for money.
Slashdot Mirror
I find promotional announcements and comercials to be very objectionable content.
Though SSL can sort of be proxied (without a man in the middle attack, that is), would this work for https sites?
It's not like they're trying to tread on the FCC's toes and license the spectrum themselves, they're just trying to maintain a semblance of network security in a relatively open environment. You're not allowed to plug a WAP into your company's LAN, are you? Why should this be different? If somebody puts up an AP, but doesn't plug it into the network, then they're exercising their right to use unlicensed spectrum, just like they would by using a 2.4GHz wireless phone or a microwave oven. But the owner of a network has every right to set policy prohibiting rogue AP's on the LAN.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't WPA2 just the WiFi Alliance being stuborn about what to call 802.11i? I mean, WPA was just supposed to be 802.11i minus everything that required hardware upgrades. WPA2 is just 802.11i, only not a real standard, ooh boy!
We actually have a "Software Center" of site licensed software that all campus users have access to. Included in that is a network installer for Jaguar and Panther, so users can rebuild their Macs by just booting off a local server. It's pretty cool.
No, actually the fiber infrastructure went in before CAT-3 was even a standard. New buildings and those getting rewired for other reasons are getting fiber AND CAT-6, but they just couldn't justify the cost of replacing the existing infrastructure. It's served us well for 15 years.
/. when we went all gig, and we made /. when we announced free wireless through our 1600 acceess points on campus. But there's nothing new to report now.
Oh, and in buildings new enough to have a copper network infrastructure as well, the ethernet ports are connected to 10/100/1000 switches, so you can plug in whatever type of RJ-45 ethernet you like.
I don't know why this is news, though. We made
Perhaps an immortal was killed on holy ground? Seems much less severe than the last time this happened, though (Pompeii).
;-p
TV teaches me so much. I'm glad I gave up that bad habit.
I could build a backdoor on the server that [...] detects connection attempts to closed ports 1026,1027,1029,1034,1026,1044 and 1035 in that sequence within 5 seconds [...]
Then your secret handshake wouldn't exactly be very secret, now would it? Why not use something that actually would remain a secret. Something fairly cryptographically strong, for example. It could still run on an unrelated port, and manage access to other ports the same way, but wouldn't be (as) easily broken by restrictive firewalls, wouldn't be sniffable, and still has the added advantage of added security (though by no means a complete solution) without depending on any modification of whatever's listening on the port your restricting access to.
Move to India?
Yeah, until they yank the check out of reach, yell "Psyche!" and sue you into oblivion for IP infringement (it doesn't even matter what for, anymore, they'll think of something, and amazingly, it'll seem even more absurd than all their previous claims).
<sarcasm>
Quick, call the Patriot Act Police, some linux using terrorists wrote some code to ping that good God loving American company, The SCO Group! Abusing them with their own IP, the gall of it!! </sarcasm>
Because you're evil, perhaps? Evil usually doesn't need much of a reason. At least, that's what I learned from the movies, so it must be true. Then again, that means it came from the MPAA, and they're evil.
And to add to the irony, they used a closed source web server (Netscape-FastTrack/2.01) back when they were on a "Caldera, Inc." owned netblock, and didn't actually switch to Apache until August of 2002. When did their litigation begin, again? It was early 2003, right? They started using other people's open source projects right before declaring open source the bane of the free market?
Ahh, good point, that's very true.
So their hipocracy has repeatedly been pointed out in their claims of the GPL being an illegal economy killer while they use Samba3. But I'd never noticed it being pointed out that they're using Apache (not GPL, granted, but still an open source license nonetheless) for their web server, and as recently as December 12 (according to the Netcraft link in the story) have been running it on Linux. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but c'mon ...
Needing to use both hands for mousing would seriously hamper porn browsing habits ...
No, it's ctrl-k.
So I can understand how an editor might easily overlook a duplicate story, but a triplicate -- and so closely following the last instance -- suggests a lack of effort.
Could the editors employ some tools to help them watch for such slip-ups? Just logging the URL's previous stories have linked to, and warning if it sees them again would eliminate a number of the simple cases like this one (though there will be a number of false positives for links just pointing at a domain like cnet.com). But it's still a start, and could easily be refined to grow in accuracy over time.
PGP comes to mind. And I'm sure Zimmerman would be all for that if the opportunity presented itself, so long as NAI is still interested in selling it.
Yeah, I know BO isn't the most legit "administrative tool". I'm just pointing out that the cDc claimed it to be. They were riding a wave of publicity surrounding it, and claimed it was legit. The cDc was a highly visible organization, they could very easily be held liable (like a virus author might) if it was deemed something purely for malicious use.
MS specifically disallowing it in the EULA gives them legal rights even if the tool is claimed to be for legitimate use.
Their real reason for doing this is more likely related to cDc's well known Back Orrifice.
It claimed to be a remote administration tool to compete with MS's Back Office, despite it's more common malicious use, and detection as a trojan app by most antivirus manufacturers.
I hope this subject doesn't turn into another on again, off again story that keeps reversing itself every other week, as Mir did. Speaking of which? Isn't it supposed to come down sometime this month?
Oooh! =) Could it be the driving force behind the next generation scour.net?? Old sk00l pr0n search engines would be obsolete!
I can see it now ...
...]
"Crap! Where's my resume??"
[after having given up and retyped it as best you could
"Well whadya know? There it was all along, behind my hentai links! I've really gotta make sure I don't stack those up so high anymore."
Absolutely!
...), it's all about *money*! It's about drawing in investors, it's about "free" publicity. It quotes on their main page about how ACM estimates the Deep Thought v. Kasparov match garnered publicity equivalent to ~$125m advertising dollars. Their main page's 2nd link is "Marketing Opportunity."
I can't believe nobody else is really seeing this. Read through their site (don't worry, there isn't much actual information
They have a flow chart for the project, and the biggest component is a bit *thick* arrow pointing at themselves labeled as '$', for crying out loud! Included in that flow chart is a *separate* company that will be doing the actual technical work.
Oh, and what's that company again? "RDD is a research, design and development company." I wonder, did they already have a company by that name, or did they have to think about it for a whole 30 seconds to come up with it? Oh wait, I forgot, these are management types, they probably spent a few weeks in meetings just to determine the consulting company to hire for suggestions.
And as Lish points out, even the semi technical parts are all fluff. If you'll notice, all of the pages where you might find technical information on this are the shortest pages on their site.
What about all of the other R&D going towards self driving cars? It's been going on for years. Every now & then you'll see some more about it in a Popular Science/Mechanics, Discover, and/or Scientific American. Self driving cars have been done countless times, they usually need something special in the road to keep track of and/or a human driver to follow. They mention they've already got positioning equipment all around the track, allowing them to position the car to within 1cm. Okay, that's a huge advantage over other self driving car projects, feasible only because it's in a closed track environment. But what about that other driver, that's still a huge feat to overcome, not to mention driving conditions and other "non-linear" elements. They don't address any of that. All they say is "this is what we want to do, imagine how much money it could bring in."
This site wasn't written for those interested in R&D, the advancement of robotics, or AI, or even F1 racing, this site was written to garner investor interest for a project that I don't think even they expect to be finished.
Until I see real evidence of ground breaking, well funded R&D, I consider this nothing more than a hoax, a deceptive ploy for money.
Don't get too excited, guys.